A press release from the New Zealand Labour Party by Grant Robertson
It is well past time for John Key to take some responsibility for the misuse of power and information by his Minister Judith Collins, and follow through on his last warning to her, Labour MP Grant Robertson says. “The evidence released this week shows John Key’s staff and Ministers are directly involved in the kind of negative politics and smears that put ordinary New Zealanders off engaging in the political process. It is time for the Prime Minister to show some leadership and take responsibility for these actions. “Nicky Hager’s book includes new examples of the way in which Judith Collins has misused information that she only had access to because she is a Minister. New Zealanders have a right to expect better of the Ministers who act on their behalf. “Two examples stand out, which John Key needs to hold Judith Collins to account for. First, she was involved in a campaign to smear a staff member in the Ministerial Services team as part of a distraction from issues being raised about Bill English claiming housing allowances in 2009. “Despite there being no evidence to suggest this staff member had done anything wrong, he was attacked in several blogs by Cameron Slater. The book released this week reveals that Judith Collins sent information about this person’s name and job to Cameron Slater as he prepared these attacks. “This is an appalling example of a Minister misusing her power to attack an innocent public servant. By his inaction John Key is telling New Zealanders that this is acceptable behaviour. “The book also contains emails from Cameron Slater that report conversations with Judith Collins about the unauthorised release of ACC information that went to Bronwyn Pullar. The emails record that Slater had talked to the Minister about the case and that he received information about what Bronwyn Pullar was doing that could only have come from Judith Collins. “As Minister for ACC that would be a gross breach of the confidentiality expected when dealing with ACC. John Key needs to investigate this to show once and for all where the leak of this sensitive information came from. “The evidence presented this week shows that Judith Collins sent many messages and emails and made many phone calls to Cameron Slater that smear and denigrate political opponents and even innocent public servants. “That is not what New Zealanders are paying her a Ministerial salary for. John Key needs to stop being so relaxed about serious issues. He needs to take some responsibility for her actions and follow through on the many warnings he has given Judith Collins,” Grant Robertson said.
1. GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his answers to questions in the House this year?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. The Prime Minister has answered 36 primary questions covering a large range of topics, and if the member wants specific answers, then he will have to ask a more specific primary question.
Grant Robertson: Does he still stand by his answers that Ministers involved in the ACC saga showed only a lapse of judgment and “not a terribly significant one”, given that there are now five separate inquiries under way into the ACC saga, and why does he just simply not appoint a judge or a QC to do a proper inquiry?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, of course, the member has taken the partial view of what the Prime Minister said. The quote the member used was in respect of the first letter, I think, that the Minister for ACC at the time had written. Of course, in that case further evidence came to light and the Minister decided to stand down. We also need to bear in mind that the focus of a number of those inquiries is actually the privacy processes of ACC, which, of course, are of great interest to all those who are claimants, and might be claimants in the future. We believe that those matters are being adequately inquired into.
Grant Robertson: Does he still stand by his answers around the appropriateness of chairing the committee and appointing his electorate chair, Stephen McElrea, to the board of New Zealand On Air, given Mr McElrea’s attempt to intervene in the broadcast of a programme?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: In answer to the question about appropriateness, I did chuckle when I saw Mike Williams on TV going on about getting rid of cronyism, when he was appointed by the last Prime Minister to, I think, five large public boards, in which he interfered in every decision any of those entities made.
Grant Robertson: How can he express confidence in all of his Ministers when his Ministers have stuffed up the reform of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, stuffed up the Crafar farm decision, and when his finance Minister can give only a guess as to the real value of the assets that are his only economic plan?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: All I can say is that the Prime Minister has more confidence in his Ministers than the deputy leader of the Labour Party has in his leader.
Grant Robertson: In reference to the Prime Minister’s answers in question time on 7 March on the provision of unconditional love by his pet, and in light of what his own pollster has described as a “quartus horribilis” for his Government, will he now reconsider his apparent decision to appoint his cat Moonbeam as the Government’s strategist?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. I do not believe the Prime Minister would do that. The Prime Minister has great affection for Moonbeam, and being the Government strategist is somewhat challenging, and Moonbeam might not be up to it. [Interruption] But he is available for the Labour Party.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Grant Robertson: Does he still stand by his answer that he has confidence that he has confidence in all his Ministers, given that the Hon John Banks failed to declare a $15,000 donation from Skycity in his electoral return for the Auckland mayoralty?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister is not aware of those issues, and the inquiry should be directed to the relevant Minister. The Prime Minister would expect that all Ministers comply with the requirements of the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament and the Cabinet Manual.
Grant Robertson: Would he still have confidence in the Hon John Banks as a Minister if he was aware that Skycity publicly stated that it had given $15,000 to both main mayoral candidates in Auckland, and that it has a policy of asking those who get donations to declare them, and that that donation to Mr Banks does not appear in his return for the Auckland mayoralty expenses?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister’s concern is that members comply with the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament and with the requirements of the Cabinet Manual, and any inquiries related to that should be directed to the relevant Minister.
Grant Robertson: Would the Prime Minister continue to have confidence in a Minister who has not declared a $15,000 donation from Skycity when running for the Auckland mayoralty, given that the penalty for failure to properly declare a donation, under the Local Electoral Act, is up to 2 years in prison—enough to force a resignation from Parliament?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only repeat the answer I gave before, and in that respect the Prime Minister is more demanding than the previous Prime Minister, who tolerated a Minister who did not declare a $100,000 donation that was arranged by the Labour Party from one of the Labour Party’s principal donors.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister recall the Hon Nick Smith telling this House, at the same time, that he made a declaration of his legal fund—identical to mine—to Dame Margaret Bazley, only to have her tell this House that he lied; that he made no such declaration? Does he recall that?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not familiar with the details of that. What I am pointing out is that the Prime Minister has a standard he expects Ministers to reach, and that standard is higher than what was applied by the previous Labour Government to its Ministers.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Prime Minister is so keen on certain standards being upheld, why is he not concerned as to what Nick Smith did when, for an egregious reason being sued for defamation, he had such a fund to his pecuniary advantage whereas the fund we had was for an electoral democratic purpose?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the purpose of the significant donation to New Zealand First by Labour’s principal donor was, I think, discussed at the time. Nick Smith was involved in a defamation action. The matters around his legal fees were all canvassed, in detail, at the time.
1. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for ACC?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, the Minister is a hard-working and competent Minister.
Grant Robertson: What occurred after the ACC Minister’s first denial that she was behind the leak of the email sent by Michelle Boag that prompted him to ask her a second time, as he told the media he had done?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member is making a mountain out of a molehill. The fact is that these matters were serious matters of public interest, and as the story unfolded the Prime Minister simply checked his understanding of what had occurred.
Grant Robertson: Did someone from his office ask blogger Cameron Slater whether he received the email from Ms Collins’ office, and if so, what was the reply?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply do not know the answer to that question.
Grant Robertson: Who else has he or his office spoken to about whether they were part of or behind the leaking of the Michelle Boag email?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: What happened with the email is a matter for the Minister and a matter for the ACC board. The Prime Minister does not regard it as his—
Hon Member: Why did he ask her then?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister is not involved with managing ACC cases. He has asked the Minister for an assurance and he has received it, and he has confidence in that Minister.
Grant Robertson: Does he agree with Bill English’s assessment of Judith Collins as being “pushed beyond her capacity”, with an “unfortunately high estimate of her own competence.”, and that she “spent too much time cultivating the media herself, and believing the resulting publicity.”?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think those comments were made some 7 or 8 years ago. The Prime Minister understands that Mr English has changed his views on all of those matters.
3. ANDREW LITTLE to the Minister for ACC: When was the email she received between 12 March 2012 and 18 March 2012 from Michelle Boag concerning Bronwyn Pullar and the involvement of both in a meeting over a mass privacy breach first printed by her or a staff member in her office?
10. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister for ACC: What advice has she received about when ACC Board Chairman John Judge first became aware of the issues that were the subject of the December meeting between senior ACC managers, Bronwyn Pullar and Michelle Boag; and if she hasn’t asked for that advice, why not?
(Parliament Editor Note: The PDF file covering the questions today was in an unusual format and can be found below)
An article from the New Zealand Herald by Adam Bennett
It has been confirmed that ACC Minister Judith Collins is planning legal action against Labour Party politicians Andrew Little and Trevor Mallard and Radio NZ for alleged defamation. It follows confirmation the Privacy Commission will investigate the email Ms Collins received from former National Party president Michelle Boag which helped end her colleague Nick Smith's ministerial career. Ms Collins has announced she is taking legal action for allegedly defamatory comments made outside the House by the two Labour Party politicians, and also the radio station. While she initially would not name who the MPs or the media outlet were, she confirmed their identities this afternoon. Labour deputy leader Grant Robertson says the MPs involved in Ms Collins legal bid are Mallard and Little, and they had received papers. Mr Roberson said he did not want to comment on the legal action, "other than to say we are doing our job holding the Government to account". "There are serious questions to be answered here about the trust and confidence from the Government about how information about a private individual made its way into the public arena." "Untrue and defamatory statements have been made about me and my conduct in relation to the handling of information I received concerning an ACC claimant," Ms Collins said in a statement this morning. "I value my reputation and take very seriously any accusations that I have acted improperly. This is not a course of action I take lightly. "I have made myself extremely clear from the outset, that neither I, nor my office, has played any part in the release of the claimant's name to the media." Ms Collins denied to Radio Live the move was a ploy to close down debate on the issue. Confirmation that Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff will investigate the email's trail from Ms Boag to an eventual report in the Herald on Sunday came as Labour claimed Ms Collins, National Party operative Simon Lusk and right-wing blogger Cameron Slater all played a part in the leak. In the email, Ms Boag set out her account of a December meeting she attended between ACC claimant and former National Party insider Bronwyn Pullar and senior ACC managers. All recipients of the email, including Ms Collins, ACC chief executive Ralph Stewart and ACC chairman John Judge have denied leaking the email to the Herald on Sunday. The Herald on Sunday's report named Ms Pullar as the woman at the centre of a major privacy breach at ACC and identified Ms Boag as her support person at the December meeting. At that meeting ACC claims Ms Pullar attempted to strike a deal to exchange the private information of thousands of other ACC claimants in return for a guaranteed benefit. It subsequently emerged that Dr Smith, who was ACC Minister, wrote two letters supporting his old friend Ms Pullar's pursuit of her ACC claim, errors for which he resigned last week. Ms Collins said the investigation, which she was told of early yesterday after a discussion with Ms Shroff on Tuesday night, was a "very good idea". The commission's work "may involve computer forensic investigation", she said. "Frankly I welcome that." Labour has been pressing for the Auditor-General to investigate Ms Pullar's use of her political connections to advance her ACC case and the role of ACC's board in setting up the December meeting. In Parliament yesterday, Labour's Trevor Mallard questioned Ms Collins on her handling of Ms Boag's email, asking whether she or any of her staff discussed its contents with Mr Lusk. Ms Collins said she had not, but Labour's deputy leader, Grant Robertson, pressed the attack later in a general debate. "We know there are many National Party figures involved in this, with the mention of Simon Lusk's name. So we want to know about Simon Lusk's phone calls to Judith Collins' office." Mr Robertson called on Ms Collins to ensure all emails in and out of her office, text messages and phone calls were made available to the Privacy Commissioner. Mr Lusk was the manager of the Vote for Change campaign against MMP last year and among other roles has served as Napier MP Chris Tremain's campaign manager, in 2008.
WHO SAW EMAIL * Michelle Boag - the sender of the email and Bronwyn Pullar's friend and supporter. * ACC Minister Judith Collins - the recipient of the email who then forwarded it to: * ACC chief executive Ralph Stewart and his secretary, and: * ACC chairman John Judge.
An article from the Dominion Post by John Hartevelt
Prime Minister John Key has twice sought assurances from ACC Minister Judith Collins that she was not behind the release of private details about ACC claimant Bronwyn Pullar. Mr Key said yesterday he was "utterly convinced" the leak did not come from Ms Collins or her office and he had no reason to question her assurances. But he revealed that he had "directly asked her the question on two occasions" as the row over how Ms Pullar's name got into the public arena intensifies. "She has absolutely assured me that it didn't come from her office and I've got no reason at all to question her." Former ACC minister Nick Smith was forced to resign from the Cabinet last week in the fallout over a series of leaks involving Ms Pullar after it emerged he had intervened in her case despite an apparent conflict of interest over their close friendship. Last night, Ms Collins contacted Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff to discuss a possible probe into the source of a leaked email detailing a meeting involving Ms Pullar and ACC staff. The email was written by former National Party president Michelle Boag, who was at the ACC meeting with Ms Pullar. Ms Collins said she would welcome Ms Pullar putting in a complaint to the privacy commissioner "because I would like to have this matter dealt with". A spokeswoman for Ms Shroff said it was possible that an inquiry could be started without a complaint being laid. Yesterday, Ms Collins rejected any suggestion of involvement in the email being leaked and shifted attention to ACC. Ms Collins said Ms Boag's email was sent to herself and one staff member. "I did not send it to anyone else. My staff member sent it to the chief executive of ACC and the chairman of the board, as I requested her to. It was not sent anywhere else." Chairman John Judge, who Ms Collins confirmed had been summoned to the Beehive on Monday over concerns about ACC privacy breaches, did not respond to questions last night. But Ms Collins said he had told her he did not know the source of the leak. Mr Judge had been "quite forthright", she said. Chief executive Ralph Stewart has also given Ms Collins an assurance the information did not come from him or his staff. However, Ms Collins said she was "not at all satisfied" with privacy systems at ACC after revelations that it had accidentally sent a spreadsheet with information about 6748 ACC clients to Ms Pullar last year. "I'm not satisfied in terms of the overall privacy but I'm not going to accuse anybody of leaking information because that might well be defamatory," Ms Collins said. Ms Boag said she was not responsible for the leak. However, she would not lay a complaint. "I'm a busy girl. I've been in Wellington working all day for a living. I don't have time to dwell all day on these things. "The ball now is in ACC's court. I will see what they will do," Ms Boag said. Labour Party deputy leader Grant Robertson said Ms Collins had "hung her own board chairman out to dry in a desperate act of self-preservation". "A full, independent inquiry into this whole sorry saga is not only called for but should be a priority." Former Labour government minister Lianne Dalziel was forced to resign as immigration minister after denying she was behind a leak that was later revealed as coming from her office.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.
Kevin Hague: Given his answers that no further independent inquiry was needed into matters to do with ACC and that the Prime Minister had conducted his own investigation, what was the nature of his private investigation, and what evidence did this investigation consider?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The answer given on the previous day in the House was that the Prime Minister had considered this matter, along with Dr Nick Smith, in relation to the Cabinet Manual and the responsibilities of Ministers when it comes to conflicts of interest.
Kevin Hague: Did the Prime Minister’s private investigation ascertain whether his previous Minister, Nick Smith, had intervened in any other ACC claims besides Ms Pullar’s?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I cannot answer that question. What I can say is that the matter related to the former Minister’s handling of the case as it related to requirements in the Cabinet Manual. That was the Prime Minister’s primary investigation, and, ultimately, the Minister paid a very high price for the decision that they both agreed on.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you might have clicked at the point that I did—as the Minister said “On behalf of the Prime Minister,”. I think he might have meant that because he was answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, he could not answer the first part of the question. It is relatively important, because otherwise the Prime Minister is on record as saying that he did not look into, or he did not know about, the other private matters.
Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the intervention from the member. If the Hon Gerry Brownlee wished to clarify that, he is welcome to do so, but he does not have to.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: For the sake of clarity, the second part of that question can be answered on the part of the Prime Minister, but I am not in a position to answer on the Prime Minister’s behalf on the first part of it.
Kevin Hague: Did the Prime Minister’s private investigation consider the 45-point list of serious legislation, guideline, and code breaches by ACC raised by Bronwyn Pullar?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am not able to answer that question on behalf of the Prime Minister.
Kevin Hague: Did the Prime Minister’s private investigation look into who had leaked Bronwyn Pullar’s name to the media, and whether this leak originated in a Government Minister’s office or from ACC itself?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member keeps referring to the Prime Minister’s private investigation. From the answers that were given relating to the primary question that is here today—answers given to all questions asked by that member in the House on 22 March—I think that is an interesting sort of leap for him to take. But in answer to the question, I am not able to answer that on behalf of the Prime Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: We have a slight difficulty there in that the Minister sought a point of order that was not really a point of order, because the member asked a question, and the Minister has now answered the question in so far as he says he is not able to answer the question. But the member is entitled to ask his questions. He made it clear in his first supplementary question that the Prime Minister had made reference to an investigation in his previous answers, and the member is entitled to ask questions. Whether the Minister can answer them is another matter, of course, while acting on behalf of the Prime Minister. But that was not an appropriate point of order.
Grant Robertson: Has the Prime Minister asked the Minister for ACC, as part of his investigation, who she believes leaked the information about Bronwyn Pullar to the media?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No.
Kevin Hague: Did the Prime Minister’s private investigation determine when the ACC Chair, John Judge, first learnt about the massive breach of confidentiality that had occurred, the potential involvement of the then Minister, and the very serious claims Miss Pullar was making about failure of good process?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are a number of questions inside the member’s question that I think conflate a number of different points along the way in this particular story. What I can confirm is that investigations were made into the propriety of the reference written by Dr Smith. It did not meet the standards that were set and expected, and therefore the Minister has resigned.
Kevin Hague: Given his response to these questions today and the fact that neither the Privacy Commissioner’s inquiry nor the police inquiry can possibly consider any of them, will he not support calls for an independent investigation into these wider matters, or does he have another reason for trying to prevent these matters from being independently investigated?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There is no attempt at all to hide anything in these cases, and I resent the member’s implication that that is what is happening.
2. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for ACC: Does she have confidence in the Board of ACC?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): Yes.
Grant Robertson: When she told the media this morning that only herself, one staff member, chairman John Judge, and the chief executive of the ACC had the information about Bronwyn Pullar, which of these people does she believe leaked that information to the media?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is not correct. What I said was that Miss Boag sent the information to me and one staff member in my office. I did not send it to anyone else. My staff member sent it to the chief executive of ACC and the chairman of the board, as I requested her to. It was not sent anywhere else from my office.
Grant Robertson: Given that answer, does she believe that board chair John Judge leaked the information about Bronwyn Pullar?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have asked Mr Judge, and he has denied the allegation.
Grant Robertson: Given her statement to the media that she has ruled out herself and her office as the source of the leak, will she rule out board chair John Judge or chief executive Ralph Stewart as the sources?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: This information that was released to the media is information belonging to Miss Pullar and Miss Boag. If either of those people wishes to make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner, then I would support them in doing that. It is not for me to speculate as to who released it. I am simply saying that I am 100 percent certain that it was neither me nor anyone in my office—100 percent certain; absolutely.
Grant Robertson: Does she accept that by ruling out herself and anyone in her office and saying that the email went only to John Judge and Ralph Stewart, she is implicating both of them in the leak?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.
9. ANDREW LITTLE to the Minister for ACC: Which of the investigations now underway in ACC – the Malcolm Crompton-led investigation into privacy issues or the Police investigation into alleged blackmail – will deal with the disclosure of former ACC Minister Nick Smith’s letter regarding Bronwyn Pullar to the media?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): I am not convinced that either investigation is likely to deal with the disclosure of this letter, as Dr Smith released the letter himself to the media following confirmation from Ms Pullar that she was happy for him to do so. However, if the Privacy Commissioner or the police wish to look into this, then that is a matter for them.
Andrew Little: How did a communication from former National Party president Michelle Boag about her involvement in Bronwyn Pullar’s case, and intended only for the Minister, get disclosed to the media, including social media?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is a matter that I would like to know the answer to. However, any people who send me information about ACC can expect that I will send it straight to ACC. That is what a Minister does.
Andrew Little: Does she believe that it is appropriate for Ministers or their staff to disclose to the media, including social media, personal information held by departments, agencies, or Crown entities about people who criticise the Government?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Certainly not.
Andrew Little: What assurance can she give ACC claimants who are finding decisions on their claims frustrating and difficult that their concerns are being taken seriously by ACC, and that they too will not find their details leaked to the media, including social media?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am very concerned about the privacy issues. That is why I asked for a report from ACC—I made sure that that was available for the public to see on the website a few days after the leaked emails—in terms of the information that Ms Pullar had, and she had put out to the Dominion Post. I was very concerned about that. That is why I am very much obliged to the Privacy Commissioner for the work that she is doing to, in fact, lead this inquiry into the privacy issues around ACC. I actually think it is extremely important that this issue be dealt with properly.
An article from the Dominion Post by John Hartevelt
ACC board chairman John Judge has assured Judith Collins no one at the organisation leaked the personal information of claimant Bronwyn Pullar. ACC Minister Judith Collins this morning appeared reluctant to express full confidence in Judge, although she stopped short of blaming him for what appears to have been a breach of Pullar's privacy. Collins, Minister for ACC, called Judge into a meeting last night. Pullar came to the media's attention after it was revealed ACC had accidentally sent the details of 6000 claimants to a third party. She was named as the recipient of the breach and revealed she had been supported by former National Party president Michelle Boag in a meeting with ACC over her case. Collins this morning said that information had "certainly not" come from her office and, after her meeting with Judge, this afternoon said the information had not come from ACC. "He assured me that it hadn't come from ACC." Asked how he could ensure that, Collins said that was a matter he needed to address. Chief executive Ralph Stewart had also told the minister he had not leaked the information publicly. "We've got a privacy commissioner's review of this and bear in mind we have a police investigation around that meeting in December and what's happened since, so I'm sure that's going to form part of what they're looking at." Collins said the one senior staff member who had received the information had only passed it on to Judge and Stewart. "I know that it did not come from me or from the one staff member that she sent it to, it did not go round my office, it didn't go round anywhere else and I know that for certain." She also said she could not see why Boag, a National Party insider and Pullar's friend, would leak the information. If Pullar had any concerns about her privacy she should contact the Privacy Commissioner or police, Collins said. Asked this morning if she had confidence in Judge, Collins said: "Look, I've got a lot of confidence in the work that he's done in the board, particularly around the financial state of ACC. But look, I'm very concerned about the privacy issues and I spoke to him last night, had him in my office to talk about this issue. I'm very concerned about the privacy issue and I expect it to be dealt with." Collins said she would not "speculate" over the source of the leak. "People can speculate all they like but I'm also aware that it didn't come from my office and it didn't come from me - I'm 100 per cent certain." The information had come "from the spoke" so there were "possibilities" about how it had emerged. Labour's deputy leader Grant Robertson said there were only a few ways the information could have been leaked and Collins needed to answer questions. He had no details but Labour would be asking questions in Parliament. "We need to find out more about how information about Ms Pullar found it's way into the public arena." There were only a few ways the information could have got out, Robertson said. "Judith Collins needs to answer very clearly whether her or her office had any role in accessing that information or in how that information made its way into the public arena." Labour wanted a full inquiry into ministerial conduct, the conduct of the ACC board and the privacy issues. The inquiry was bigger than what the Privacy Commissioner or police could look at and the auditor-general should be involved, he said.
A press release from the Labour Party by Grant Robertson
ACC Minister Judith Collins has hung her own board chairman out to dry in a desperate act of self-preservation, Labour’s deputy leader Grant Robertson says. “Ms Collins summoned ACC chair John Judge to Parliament today for a ‘please explain’ over the leaking of information about claimant Bronwyn Pullar to the media. “During questioning in the House she refused to say who she thought was responsible for the leak, despite having said only four people had the information – herself, an office staffer, Mr Judge and ACC chief executive Ralph Stewart. “Ms Collins was adamant the information hadn’t come from her office. She had asked Mr Judge about the privacy breach; he denied any involvement. “She has said she is not responsible, nor was her staff member. That leaves her chairman and her chief executive under the spotlight. She has hung them out to dry. “This has been a fiasco from the start. It smacks of cronyism and leaves the impression with many that if you know someone in the National party, then you’ll be treated differently by ACC. “A full, independent inquiry into this whole sorry saga is not only called for but should be a priority,” Grant Robertson said.
ACC Minister Judith Collins says her office is not responsible for leaking information about claimant Bronwyn Pullar to the media. National MP Nick Smith resigned from his ministerial portfolios last week because of his involvement in Ms Pullar's case, and Opposition parties are pushing for an independent investigation. Bronwyn Pullar has accused the Accident Compensation Corporation of leaking information about her to the media. That information came from an email sent by a former National Party president, Michelle Boag, to ACC Minister Judith Collins. Ms Collins said on Tuesday the email was not leaked to media by her office. "It was sent to me and to one staff member in my office. My staff member sent it to the chairman and to the chief executive. That's it." Ms Collins says she won't speculate on where the leak came from. However, she is continuing to have discussions with ACC, including the chairman of the board John Judge. "I'm very concerned about the privacy issues and I spoke to him last night ... and I expect it to be dealt with." The Labour Party's deputy leader, Grant Robertson, says there are questions around the board's involvement in Ms Pullar's case. "What we know at this stage is that a board member was approached by Bronwyn Pullar. "What we don't know all the answers to is what then happened in terms of how ACC management got involved and what was the board member's role." Mr Robertston says the conduct of the ACC and its board need should be investigated by the Auditor-General.
An article from the Dominion Post by John Hartevelt
ACC board chairman John Judge has been called to the Beehive to discuss the leaking of private information about ACC client and complainant Bronwyn Pullar. ACC Minister Judith Collins this morning appeared reluctant to express full confidence in Judge, although she stopped short of blaming him for what appears to have been a breach of Pullar's privacy. Pullar came to the media's attention after it was revealed ACC had accidentally sent the details of 6000 claimants to a third party. She was named as the recipient of the breach and revealed she had been supported by former National Party president Michelle Boag in a meeting with ACC over her case. Collins this morning said that information had "certainly not" come from her office. Asked this morning if she had confidence in Judge, Collins said: "Look, I've got a lot of confidence in the work that he's done in the board, particularly around the financial state of ACC. But look, I'm very concerned about the privacy issues and I spoke to him last night, had him in my office to talk about this issue. I'm very concerned about the privacy issue and I expect it to be dealt with." Collins said she would not "speculate" over the source of the leak. "People can speculate all they like but I'm also aware that it didn't come from my office and it didn't come from me - I'm 100 per cent certain." The information had come "from the spoke" so there were "possibilities" about how it had emerged. "If Ms Pullar thinks her privacy has been breached, then I suggest she makes a complaint to the privacy commissioner and have it investigated," Collins said. Labour's deputy leader Grant Robertson said there were only a few ways the information could have been leaked and Collins needed to answer questions. He had no details but Labour would be asking questions in Parliament. "We need to find out more about how information about Ms Pullar found it's way into the public arena." There were only a few ways the information could have got out, Robertson said. "Judith Collins needs to answer very clearly whether her or her office had any role in accessing that information or in how that information made its way into the public arena." Told Collins had denied the leak came form her office, Robertson asked "who is it then?" Labour wanted a full inquiry into ministerial conduct, the conduct of the ACC board and the privacy issues. The inquiry was bigger than what the Privacy Commissioner or police could look at and the auditor-general should be involved, he said. "The impression New Zealanders are going to get is that if you know somebody in the National Party, you get treated differently by ACC and there's a word for that, it's cronyism." It was still cronyism, regardless of the outcome, he said.
1. GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Will he agree to the requests of former Minister Hon Dr. Nick Smith and others for an inquiry about the Minister’s role in the ACC case of Bronwyn Pullar and surrounding issues; if not, why not?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: No; first, the Prime Minister has accepted Dr Smith’s resignation because of his errors of judgment, which deals with those matters; and, secondly, there are independent investigations under way by both the Privacy Commissioner and the police into other related matters.
Grant Robertson: Will the inquiry being undertaken by the Privacy Commissioner look at whether any of the following had an influence on how Bronwyn Pullar’s case was handled: Nick Smith’s letter on her behalf; her connections to other National Party MPs; her connection to the former National Party president; her connection to board members of ACC; and if not, is not an independent inquiry necessary?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: That would be a question best directed to the Privacy Commissioner about what matters she is covering. The member can get answers to the other questions by asking ACC or asking Ms Pullar.
Grant Robertson: Will the inquiry being undertaken by the Privacy Commissioner address the issue of why two senior ACC managers attended the meeting in December 2011 with Bronwyn Pullar and former National Party president Michelle Boag, well before any privacy issues had arisen; and if not, is not an independent inquiry necessary?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not think that meeting warrants an inquiry. For those of us who are familiar with constituents who persist over many years with particular complaints, I am not surprised to hear that ACC sent a senior manager to a meeting with someone who clearly had been corresponding with it over issues for many years.
Grant Robertson: Will the inquiry being undertaken by the Privacy Commissioner look at the role of a board member in setting up a meeting between two senior ACC managers with Michelle Boag and Bronwyn Pullar, and whether those senior managers were aware of the Minister’s letters about, and interest in, her case, and if not, is not an independent inquiry necessary?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The matter before the Prime Minister was the issue of conflicts of interest for a Minister. It was established that those conflicts had not been dealt with appropriately, and the Minister involved has paid a heavy price for it. That matter does not warrant further inquiries.
Grant Robertson: Why will the Prime Minister not accept that an independent inquiry is necessary to restore the public trust and confidence in the processes of ACC and the transparency and accountability of his Government?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The transparency and the accountability of this Government have been well established by the fact that a Minister was demonstrated not to have dealt with a conflict of interest appropriately and has now resigned as a Minister. In respect of the ACC, actually the irony here is that it is Ms Pullar who has got a lot of interest in how the ACC works and has, over a number of years, proven to be a persistent litigant with ACC.
Grant Robertson: Even if he does not accept any of the other reasons for an independent inquiry, does he not think he owes it to his former ministerial colleague Nick Smith to hold the independent inquiry that he is asking for?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, for the reasons that I set out on behalf of the Prime Minister earlier. Dr Smith has now resigned because of his errors of judgment, and, secondly, independent investigations are under way by both the Privacy Commissioner and the police into any related matters.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Privacy Commissioner is restrained to issues of confidentiality and the police are restrained to issues of criminality, why is he trying to flannel this Parliament by saying that is a good enough inquiry on the issues of political impropriety?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The matter of political impropriety has been dealt with swiftly and with serious accountability, in contrast to how those matters used to be dealt with by the previous Government.
Kevin Hague: What advice has he taken on whether the Privacy Commissioner has the legal power to consider ministerial responsibility and interference in ACC claims, and what was that advice?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The issue of ministerial responsibility is fundamentally one to be dealt with by the Prime Minister, not the Privacy Commissioner, and the Opposition is carrying on as though no action has been taken. In fact, a Minister stood in this House yesterday and took the most serious punishment a Minister can take, and that is resignation from the executive and from his portfolios because of his acknowledged errors of judgment. That is how the issue of ministerial responsibility has been dealt with.
Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister’s answer did not address the issue of what advice had been sought.
Mr SPEAKER: I accept the fundamental point the member made, although his question went on to what advice had been sought in respect of, and the final part of the question related to matters of political—
Kevin Hague: The final part of the question asked what the advice had been, if there had been any.
Mr SPEAKER: In case of doubt, I invite the member to repeat his question.
Kevin Hague: What advice has he taken on whether the Privacy Commissioner has the legal power to consider ministerial responsibility and interference in ACC claims, and what was that advice?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot answer that question on behalf of the Prime Minister for sure. I cannot actually say whether he has taken advice on that matter, but it is quite likely that any advice asked for on that matter would tell us what we already know, and that is that responsibility for how Ministers behave fundamentally lies with the Prime Minister, not the Privacy Commissioner, and the Prime Minister has dealt with the issue. The Opposition may not have realised that the Minister was resigning yesterday, but that is what happened.
Kevin Hague: Is the Prime Minister confirming that there will be no Government-ordered independent investigation into the conduct of Dr Smith in respect of ACC claims?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has conducted his inquiry into the conduct of Dr Smith, and the result of that inquiry is that Dr Smith resigned from his portfolios and resigned from the executive. There are no other measures that can be taken in respect of ministerial responsibility. They have been taken.
Kevin Hague: How can the public have confidence that ACC claims will be administered in a politically neutral way, when there has been no investigation into the extent of political interference in claims?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has considered the circumstances around Dr Smith’s actions. Dr Smith has considered those actions, and that has led to the resignation of the Minister because a conflict of interest was not handled appropriately. I note that Ms Pullar’s public statements indicate that she remains deeply dissatisfied with her treatment by ACC, despite, I think, 3 years of communication with the Minister.
Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of the Prime Minister’s description of Nick Smith’s letter as improper, inappropriate, and in error, which resulted in his resignation, how does the Prime Minister differentiate that from the affidavit given to the Supreme Court by the Attorney-General in support of his friend Bill Wilson?
Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Bill English—in so far as the Minister can answer that. It is a fair way from the primary question.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is right. It is unlikely that the member’s question bears much resemblance to reality.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has dealt with the matter of the Attorney-General’s support of his friend Bill Wilson—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. It is not that difficult to read the primary question and see that the primary question has nothing to do with the Attorney-General and nothing to do with Bill Wilson. The member asked a supplementary question that was so far away from the primary question that I could have ruled it out, but I did not. Maybe I should have ruled it out; that would have avoided the answer, which was perhaps unhelpful. The question is too far from the primary question. If it helps deal with the situation, I think the Minister’s answer perhaps could be ruled out and the question could be ruled out, because I think the question was out of order.
Hon Trevor Mallard: If you have ruled it out, I will go back to scratch. Why is the treatment of Nick Smith fair if he has to resign for providing a letter of support in an ACC case but the Attorney- General does not have to resign for providing an affidavit for his friend in the Supreme Court?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am advised that the assertions made in that question are incorrect.
10. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: What was so vastly different in the contents of the first and second letters from Hon Dr Nick Smith to ACC regarding Bronwyn Pullar that finally made him decide to accept Dr Smith’s resignation?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister saw the contents of the second letter yesterday morning. It was the combination of the two letters that led to his decision to accept the resignation.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did he again express confidence in Mr Smith yesterday morning, even after being made aware of the March 2010 letter to National MP Sam Lotu-Iiga?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot answer that directly on behalf of the Prime Minister other than to say that these are matters that any Prime Minister would consider.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: When did he first know of Miss Pullar’s correspondence with Mr Smith and various other members of the National Party caucus asking for assistance in dealing with ACC, and what action did he take on receipt of this knowledge?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the Prime Minister answered those questions in the House yesterday.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am asking the question today. The Prime Minister did not answer that question yesterday, at all. He particularly avoided answering the question.
Mr SPEAKER: We have a Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. I do recollect that question being asked yesterday, and I do remember the Prime Minister answering that question yesterday. I believe that he even gave a day when he understood he was first made aware of the issue. I cannot expect the Minister, answering on behalf of another Minister, to necessarily have that date. The risk is that he might inadvertently mislead the House, which would not be a good thing. I think that the Minister has, under those circumstances, given a reasonable answer.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The reason why I am asking the question today is that the Prime Minister did not answer that question yesterday, otherwise I would not be asking the question today. I am asking the question today because when it came to that particular question he did not answer it, and the Hansard will show it. So to say that the Prime Minister answered the question yesterday—when he did not—even though this Minister is not the actual Prime Minister, does not mean that he escapes some responsibility here.
Mr SPEAKER: I have to accept the Minister’s answer. The Minister has said that the Prime Minister answered that question yesterday. If the answer from a Minister is absolutely outrageous in terms of its impossibility of being accurate maybe the Speaker could do something, but under these circumstances the Minister has said on behalf of the Prime Minister that the Prime Minister answered that question yesterday, and I have to take the Minister’s word for that.
Hon David Parker: I think it is permissible for a member to ask the same question day after day and still expect an answer. If the Minister does not know—and it is quite possible that the Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister may not know, and that is no criticism of him—he should say that. If, on the other hand, he wants—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the member is now getting to the point of suggesting how a Minister should answer the question. The Minister has given a perfectly reasonable answer. He said in his view, answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, that the Prime Minister answered that question yesterday.
Hon David Parker: It’s not an answer to the question.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. As the Hon David Parker has pointed out, any member is entitled to ask the same question on successive days. There is nothing out of order about that whatsoever. The Rt Hon Winston Peters has done that and the Minister has answered, on behalf of the Prime Minister, that he answered that question yesterday. Now, I cannot take that matter any further. I have to accept the Minister’s answer. It seems reasonable to me because I thought I heard that answer yesterday.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, Mr Speaker, the problem is that the answer is not an answer to the question; it is an answer as to whether the question was answered yesterday, and that was not Mr Peters’ question.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now disputing the Speaker’s ruling, which is not helpful, and he should desist from that. It is a perfectly acceptable answer, where the Minister has said on behalf of the Prime Minister that he answered that question yesterday, and I have to accept that. If it was clearly outrageous I could do something about it, but it is not. It seems a perfectly reasonable answer under the circumstances because I am certain I heard the Prime Minister yesterday indicate when he first was made aware of this issue. As far as I am concerned that is a reasonable answer to the question.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not wanting to contend what you are saying, but the point is this question was not asked this way yesterday. That is the first thing. The second thing is that it turns on this very important chronological matter, because it becomes clear, if you look at the Hansard, and also at the Prime Minister’s comments in the media, that the date of his knowledge of that second letter is critical to the question. All I am asking is when did he actually learn about that second letter, because if he is expressing confidence after having read the letter, then—
Mr SPEAKER: The member is now getting into the detail of the matter. The remedy is perfectly within the member’s hand to follow because clearly there are going to be further question times next week. If that question is such an important question, if the member puts it down as a primary question then an answer is given or a statement made in the House in a situation of some formality, and there is a real responsibility on Ministers when answering a primary question to be very careful they give the House correct information. An answer to a supplementary question is not such a situation of formality as a primary question, and if the member feels this is a particularly important issue—and I make no comment on that whatsoever—then a primary question would make sure that a Minister is answering in a situation of some formality and has to be very careful about the information they give the House.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask you this. Does that mean he can rise in the House on the next sitting day and when I ask this same question as the primary question say: “Well, that answer was given last Wednesday.” and sit down? Where is this House going to be—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! If that was put down as a primary question I think I would expect a more complete answer to a primary question than that.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was the Prime Minister not aware before Monday evening that Ms Pullar, a former National Party official, sent a tonne of emails, to use the media expression, to Nick Smith, which is the real reason he was removed from the ACC portfolio, and is it true that his successor to the ACC portfolio was privately briefed over this controversial situation?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Oh, you would need to ask the other Minister. What I can say is that the Prime Minister has been more comfortable dealing with this issue than a previous Prime Minister was in dealing with that member when he had—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think it is going to lead to serious disorder in the House if I allow the Minister to go down that track. The member asked a question, and it has been answered. People can judge the question without the Minister going down that track.
Government Minister Nick Smith has quit the Government over two conflicts of interest in letters he wrote regarding a friend's ACC claim. He became emotional in the House as he announced his resignation as minister for Climate Change, Environment and Local Government. "I do so because I made not one error of judgement, but two in dealing with a conflict of interest in respect of a friend who had made repeated attempts to me during my period as Minister of ACC to advocate and interfere in her case," he said. Smith said the Prime Minister "has quite properly accepted my resignation". His first error was in July last year when the friend, former National Party official Bronwyn Pullar, said there were concerns about her status prior to a cycling accident she had in 2002. He then wrote a letter "providing knowledge of her in that pre-accident period". Smith said he made plain he was writing in the capacity of a friend and he did not intend to interfere in ACC decisions. "It was an error in judgement" to have written the letter and to have done so on ministerial letterhead, Smith said. The second mistake was to not declare a conflict of interest in his involvement with another request from Pullar in 2010, he told the House. Then Associate Minister for ACC Pansy Wong had received a request from Pullar via an MP in March that year. Wong declined as she knew Pullar and declared a conflict of interest. ACC then prepared a formal response which Smith signed off, but he failed to declare his own conflict of interest, he said. He apologised to his friends and family for the mistake. Arriving in Wellington just before 2pm, Smith faced questions from waiting media but refused to answer and asked to be treated with "a little humanity". PM John Key said in a statement: "Dr Smith has been a hard-working and diligent Minister, but perceptions do matter and he knows he has let himself down. "I am very disappointed to have lost such a capable Minister. Dr Smith has made a huge contribution to the National Party and to this Government." Gerry Brownlee will stand in as Local Government Minister, Craig Foss for Climate Change Issues and Chris Finlayson for Environment. Labour deputy leader Grant Robertson said after Smith's resignation that it was clear Smith was a "close associate" of Pullar and that ministerial standards had reached a "new low".
'At the moment' Asked about the matter earlier this morning, Key said he had confidence in Smith "at the moment", but said that could change this afternoon. Under repeated questioning as to the nature of the relationship between Smith and Pullar, Key said he was not prepared to comment, and said Smith is "only human". A spokesman for Smith said he was friends with Pullar. Labour's ACC Spokesman Andrew Little earlier said Smith knew what he was doing and he should not be allowed to continue in his current role . "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 minister and he knows that." New Zealand 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.
Following Question Time Speaker Lockwood Smith granted an Urgent Debate on the release of the private information by ACC. Labour Deputy Leader Grant Robertson said there were numerous National ministers and high profile National Party members involved in the release of ACC client details and related issues, and a result there was a need for a wide ranging inquiry. Robertson said the Auditor General should do the inquiry and not the Privacy Commissioner as the work would be too narrowly focussed. His speech was interrupted by a member of the public letting off an air horn attached to a mobility scooter in the gallery. ACC Minister Judith Collins said she felt sorry for the more than 6000 people who had their details inadvertently sent to an ACC claimant. Collins said the information released was only a spread sheet on appeals, but it was still a dreadful mistake to have been made. Collins said she first heard of the issue last week and it was proper that the Privacy Commissioner look into the issue and this would provide a full and thorough review of ACC.
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."
An article from Stuff by Danya Levy, Tracy Watkins, Kate Chapman and Vernon Small
Former ACC Minister Nick Smith made an "error of judgement" sending a reference letter on ministerial letterhead in support of a woman fighting for ACC coverage, Prime Minister John Key says. However, Key said he had accepted Smith's apology over the matter. Smith has this morning admitted he wrote the letter on a ministerial letterhead. The Government this morning released the letter, after much pressure from Labour, written in support of a woman at the centre of a massive privacy breach by the corporation. ACC whistleblower and former National Party figure Bronwyn Pullar was 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. The letter was addressed "to whom it may concern". Smith was ACC minister at the time. Smith insisted, however, that he had not used his ministerial position to influence ACC. Smith said he now regretted writing the letter, saying it was an error of judgment. Smith said Pullar was a friend but he would not describe her as a family friend or an intimate. "I made the balance of judgements at the time that the right thing to do as a friend was not to interfere in ACC in any way but to provide the information of what I knew prior to her accident. In hindsight that was a mistake."
In the July 7, 2011 letter he said Pullar was a long-standing friend since the mid-1990s through her voluntary work for the National Party, her South Island family and her work in the export industry. While written on a ministerial letterhead, Smith says in it that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on her claims issue "given my current role as minister". He was also not in a position to have a view on the degree she had recovered or been rehabilitated from the cycling accident a decade before. "I can confirm however, that in my many contacts with Bronwyn prior to the accident she was well and a dynamic, capable person who worked hard and achieved a lot. "To the best of my knowledge she did not have any health or other conditions or issues that would have compromised her capacity to work." "She had a strong reputation as a very effective and efficient worker in both her voluntary and professional roles". "I wish to put this on the record so to assist in any comparative assessment of Bronwyn's current health." Smith said he had not offered to resign. He said the letter made absolutely plain that he only wanted to provide information for the medical assessor about the claimant in the sense that he knew her prior to the accident, and that prior to that period he had no knowledge she had "any health issues or the like". He had asked the claimant for the right to release the letter. She had written dozens and dozens of emails to him seeking his intervention. "I repeatedly said to her that the proper process for her to go through was the independent review process that ACC has." She had come back to him to say ACC was claiming she was not employable or not in a fit state of health prior to the accident.
'ERROR OF JUDGEMENT' Key said he had accepted Smith's apology and it was an error of judgement to send the letter on ministerial letterhead. However he did not think Smith should lose his ministerial portfolios. He had seen the correspondence between the minister and ACC and the reference letter Smith provided for Pullar's medical assessment. Smith had made it clear she was a friend, Key said. "I think in writing a reference, even though we all have friends, as Ministers of the Crown, that's an error of judgement in this particular case. "I accept his assurance about the communications he's had with the management of ACC, that she was known to him, that she was a friend, that he didn't want any influence there." The reference letter was about Pullar's state of health and was sent to the medical assessor, not ACC. It did not seem to have had an influence because she was still unhappy with the level of support she received from ACC, Key said. He believed Smith would act differently if presented with the same situation again. "I wouldn't want to see him do that again." Key had written letters of reference on his letterhead for former employees "very few" times. He recalled meeting Pullar early in his political career but had not seen her in the past five or six years. "I remember her telling me right back then about her accident, about how she was treated with ACC, so it's been a long-standing dispute and arguably changes of government have made absolutely no difference in terms of the way she perceives that that disputes been handled."
ACC DECISION-MAKING 'UNAFFECTED' ACC Minister Judith Collins said she had not seen Smith's letter but did not believe it had influenced ACC's decision-making on Pullar's case. "I would hope that nobody would be influence in that light." Pullar was entitled to dispute ACC's claim she had asked for two year's of benefit payments in return for returning the confidential data. "If she believe she has been wrongly dealt with, there is going to a review by the Privacy Commissioner, I understand the police are involved and I'm sure she will be able to advise them accordingly." Collins said she was "100 per cent confident" neither her or her staff had leaked details about Pullar to the media. She had forwarded a summary of Pullar's case, sent by former National Party president Michelle Boag, to ACC's chief executive Patrick Stuart and chairman John Judge. "Where it has gone from there, I don't know. Who has leaked it, I don't know." It could have been leaked from another source, she said. "I am sure any electronic footprint on those emails will show exactly where it has gone." ACC was working with Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff to develop terms of reference for her independent investigation into the privacy breach. "ACC will be co-operating fully with the Privacy Commissioner to come to a conclusion as to how it happened but also to put in place processes so it doesn't happen again. "It is difficult to guarantee that but a process is clearly needed."
'HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE' Labour's deputy leader Grant Robertson said Smith was well aware of Pullar's ongoing case with ACC at the time. "He must have known this would form part of her ACC case." It was "highly inappropriate" for Smith to have written the letter, he said. It gave weight to calls for an independent inquiry into the privacy breach. "We shouldn't forget the victims of this situation are the people's whose information has been released. "Every day that goes by this issue gets murkier and I think an independent inquiry is now what is required, into the the whole situation, the release of the information and who was involved." Pullar's name was leaked to a Sunday newspaper, along with an email from Boag, who was also at the meeting in which ACC claims the threat was made. The email was from Boag to Collins and detailed her recollection of the meeting. Key said Collins has assured him she did not leak the email. ACC confirmed last night it had given Collins an assurance the email was not leaked by either the chief executive or staff. Boag yesterday insisted she had not leaked the email or Pullar's name to media.
Former ACC minister Nick Smith has admitted he wrote a letter supporting
the claim of a former National Party official on a ministerial
letterhead.
The revelation came as Labour called on Smith to release the letter, for
a woman at the centre of a massive privacy breach by the corporation.
Smith said today he now regretted doing so and it was an error of
judgment. He had apologised to Prime Minister John Key this morning. The
letter was addressed to ACC medical assessors. Smith was ACC minister
at the time.
ACC whistleblower and former National Party figure Bronwyn Pullar was
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.
A spokesman for Smith this morning confirmed 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.
"There is nothing in the letter apart from a statement about her state
of health and work capability when he knew her prior to the accident."
However, Labour's deputy leader Grant Robertson said Smith was well aware of Pullar's ongoing case with ACC at the time.
"He must have known this would form part of her ACC case."
It was "highly inappropriate" for Smith to have written the letter, he
said. It gave weight to calls for an independent inquiry into the
privacy breach.
"We shouldn't forget the victims of this situation are the people's whose information has been released.
"Every day that goes by this issue gets murkier and I think an
independent inquiry is now what is required, into the the whole
situation, the release of the information and who was involved."
Smith's spokesman said the minister was happy for the letter to be
released but because it was confidential, it could only be released with
Pullar's written permission.
Pullar's name was leaked to a Sunday newspaper, along with an email from
her supporter, former National Party president Michelle Boag, who was
also at the meeting in which ACC claims the threat was made.
The email was from Boag to ACC Minister Judith Collins and detailed her recollection of the meeting.
Prime Minister John Key has said Collins has assured him she did not leak the email.
ACC confirmed last night it had given Collins an assurance the email was not leaked by either the chief executive or staff.
Boag yesterday insisted she had not leaked the email or Pullar's name to media.
