The Swamp Report: Michelle Boag

Showing posts with label Michelle Boag. Show all posts

30 August 2014

Complaint turns up heat on Collins

An article from the Dominion Post by Phil Kitchin

An ACC whistleblower has complained to the privacy commissioner alleging Cabinet minister Judith Collins leaked confidential but false details to WhaleOil blogger Cameron Slater. Bronwyn Pullar filed her complaint after reading in Nicky Hager's Dirty Politics claims of Slater giving a friend - a former sex worker - false details about Pullar that the blogger said he got after speaking to Collins.
Privacy Commissioner John Edwards, whose office is overseen by Collins as the justice minister, said yesterday that he was assessing the complaint. The complaint heaps more pressure on the embattled Collins, who is on a "final final warning" from Prime Minister John Key after admitting she passed details about public servant Simon Pleasants to Slater, who then published material on his blog, prompting death threats against the bureaucrat.
Pullar caused severe embarrassment for Collins, who is also ACC minister, when she blew the whistle in 2012 on a massive ACC privacy breach involving her being sent confidential details on 6500 claimants, including sexual abuse victims.
Dirty Politics claims the day the story broke, Slater told the former prostitute - who was concerned her details were part of the ACC breach - that he would talk to Collins for "the real story". In two sets of messages between Slater and the ex-prostitute, Slater said he had spoken to Collins, and he provided his friend with then-unknown information about the whistleblower, the book claims.
Particularly damaging for Collins are the book's claims that Slater's statements show that he knew who Pullar was, that she had tried to extort ACC and that she was likely to be prosecuted. At the time Dirty Politics claims he was stating this to the ex-sex worker, ACC had not laid any extortion complaint to police and Pullar's request for anonymity had been respected by ACC.
If Slater's statements to the former prostitute as detailed in the book are correct, Collins could face serious trouble for leaking Pullar's name and false allegations of extortion against her before the minister had received any final written reports from her ministry.
However, Slater now insists the key details were not leaked by Collins.
Slater yesterday confirmed he spoke to Collins but said she only provided him with details about the privacy breach to allay his ex-sex worker friend's fears. He said Collins gave him no information about Pullar and allegations of extortion, and that he got that information from other sources.
Collins side-stepped questions about what she told Slater and said she was unaware of any complaint to the privacy commissioner against her by Pullar.
"If there is one, I would be unable to comment," Collins said.
"There are complaints about the Hager book and stolen emails before the police and the privacy commissioner and it would be inappropriate to comment further."
When Pullar first blew the whistle on ACC she was not identified, and the corporation was told she wished to remain anonymous so she was not deluged with calls from ACC clients asking if they were part of the privacy breach. The scandal forced ACC into making thousands of apologies and Collins faced snap debates in Parliament.
Three days after the story broke and after crisis meetings involving Collins, then chairman John Judge and then chief executive Ralph Stewart, ACC hit back at Pullar.
ACC published a report claiming Pullar tried to extort the corporation at a December 2011 meeting held between Pullar, her support person and former National Party president Michelle Boag, and two senior ACC managers. ACC did not ask Pullar for her side of the story before making the allegations public and then repeating them to police, who launched an inquiry.
Slater was then fed a memo from Boag to Collins which he gave to a Sunday newspaper reporter and Pullar's name became public knowledge. Slater went on the attack on his blog, falsely accusing Pullar and Boag of blackmail.
But ACC and Slater did not know Pullar had a tape recording of the meeting that showed the allegations were false.
Correspondence with the privacy commissioner's office obtained by The Dominion Post shows the commissioner admitting his office initially "overlooked" Pullar's complaint made on August 15.
The commissioner last week ruled out investigating a Green Party complaint that Collins leaked Pleasants' name to Slater. He said he would need a complaint from Pleasants, who has declined to lodge one.
Edwards' assistant commissioner of investigations, Mike Flahive, told Pullar on Wednesday he was "assessing" her complaint to consider what action to take.
"Your patience would be appreciated," Flahive said.

NEW COMPLAINT
The latest complaint that ACC and Justice Minister Judith Collins breached ACC whistleblower Bronwyn Pullar's privacy is different to one that dragged Collins into an earlier investigation by the privacy commissioner. That investigation was launched when a memo from former National Party president Michelle Boag to Collins clarifying Puller's reasons for blowing the whistle was leaked to a reporter. The leak led to Pullar - who has a brain injury - coming under siege from media as ACC simultaneously falsely claimed she'd tried to extort the corporation.
Investigators trawled through Collins' office and computer and questioned ACC chairman John Judge and then chief executive Ralph Stewart to try to find the source of the leak. Collins was accused of being the leaker, which she correctly denied.
The investigation failed to find the leak but informed sources have confirmed to The Dominion Post that the leak was from one senior board member to another, who gave it to a blogger, who passed it to Slater, who gave it to the reporter.

HOW IT UNFOLDED
March 13, 2012 - The Dominion Post reveals ACC breached the privacy of 6500 ACC clients, including rape victims, by sending their details to an unnamed ACC client.
March 13 - According to Dirty Politics, WhaleOil blogger Cameron Slater tells an ex-prostitute friend he would ring ACC Minister Judith Collins to "get the real story".
March 14 - Slater tells the ex-prostitute the whistleblower was a woman who tried to blackmail ACC and was likely to be prosecuted for extortion, Dirty Politics claims. That afternoon, minister Collins attends a meeting with ACC chief executive Ralph Stewart and chairman John Judge. In an affidavit later, Judge said Collins "very strongly" pushed for police to be told about threats allegedly made by Pullar at a meeting with ACC on December 2011.
March 15 - The word "blackmail" is first publicly discussed. Collins tells Radio Live she had oral reports on the December meeting but wanted written reports.
March 15 - Two ACC managers from the December meeting provide their official account, which contains no allegations of blackmail or extortion.
March 16 - A "situation report" is published on ACC's website accusing the whistleblower of extortion.
March 17 - The book claims Slater tells the ex-prostitute he knows who the whistleblower is and that she will get "rat f...ed hard."
March 18 - A Sunday newspaper names the whistleblower, Bronwyn Pullar, after Slater provides a leaked email from ACC.
March 19 - ACC makes a written complaint to police about alleged extortion.
April 30 - The Dominion Post reveals Pullar recorded the critical meeting at which ACC claimed she'd tried to extort the corporation. The recording showed ACC had made false allegations. Police swiftly shut down their investigation.

22 December 2012

Privacy the year's big trivial story

An article from the New Zealand Herald by John Roughan

ACC data leak turned out to contain nothing personal.
Among the Christmas cards I get at work there is always one from the Privacy Commissioner, Marie Shroff. Invariably it contains a good visual gag. This year's features a Slane cartoon of a boy stuck with his head and upper body in a Dutch dyke and a passer-by explains to another, "The leak was worse than first thought".
I hope the irony was intended, because it's time to acknowledge that the biggest leak of the year, the one that the news kept calling a "massive privacy breach" which the commissioner had to investigate, turned out not to be very big at all.
It sounded serious when it was first reported that the personal details of thousands of ACC claimants had been accidentally emailed to one unnamed claimant.Among them were said to be victims of sexual offences.
Then someone on the side of ACC leaked back, naming the recipient and letting it be known she had turned up with a supporter, none other than National insider Michelle Boag, for a meeting where it was pointedly mentioned to her claim handlers that she was holding information she shouldn't have.
After that, the story took off in all directions, not all of them connected to the email accident. Nick Smith had to resign, there was palace intrigue over who leaked a memo from Boag to ACC minister, Judith Collins, who sued two MPs for suggesting it was her.
Grimly, she replaced ACC's chairman, deputy chairman, four board members and the chief executive.
Meanwhile, Labour and the Greens made a sustained attack on ACC's "culture", not just its carelessness with email but its determination to check all claims rigorously and get the injured back to work quickly. The story took on so many dimensions and ran for so long that the Privacy Commissioner's investigation of the original data leak became little more than a footnote.
But there was nothing minimal about her investigation. She appointed an independent review team of KPMG business consultants and a Melbourne company, Information Integrity Solutions Ltd, who together really went to town. From April to August they travelled the country, conducting by their own account more than 150 interviews at ACC's head office, its sensitive claims unit, six branch offices and two service centres.
They went far beyond "client facing" staff to talk to the myriad sections of the corporation that have to see claimants' confidential information: researchers, lawyers, risk assessors, injury prevention officers, assurance services, business intelligence, actuarial people, plus the complaints investigation team.
They talked to "external stakeholders": claimants, their advocates and associates, holding a workshop with some of them. They performed "walk-throughs" of the corporation's email handling habits, compared its information security practices with those of some other organisations, and much, much more.
By the time they presented the Privacy Commissioner with their report, the country was sick of the subject and hardly anybody read it.
It ran to 102 pages. You had to read to page 99 to discover exactly what sort of confidential client information had escaped.
But finally, in the fifth appendix, there it was: a sample of the fabled spreadsheet of "personal" data. It consisted of four tables listing claimants' names (removed for the report), their claim numbers, review numbers, branch, lodgement dates, issue codes, decision dates and the like.
That was it. That is all there was.
There was nothing that could be of the slightest use or interest to anyone outside ACC. No personal details alongside the names, no injury information, nothing.
That is what all the fuss had been about.
The thing that disappointed me was that so many people had known all along that the "massive privacy breach" amounted to nothing more than this. Investigative reporters, the Privacy Commissioner, her Independent Review Team, all would have discovered the contents of the spreadsheet very quickly.
None blew the whistle. No reports that I saw looked critically at the facts at the heart of a story that kept on growing and giving. The Privacy Commissioner did not say something to restore a sense of proportion. The review team, no doubt well paid, went about its investigation as though there was a serious problem.
An accident had happened. An ACC rehabilitation officer had a monthly sheet of case reviews on his screen when he decided to respond to an email. He dragged the data aside, clicked a wrong button and unwittingly attached it to the return email.
Computers are a minefield for privacy. Accidents will happen, despite all the procedures the commissioner's expert team has laid down. It happened to Social Welfare kiosks a short time later. If the data is as indecipherable as that ACC released, it won't matter in the slightest. It was the trivial story of the year.

23 August 2012

Damning report expected on ACC

An article from the Dominion Post by Phil Kitchin

An independent investigation into ACC, prompted by revelations of a mass privacy breach, is expected to condemn the corporation's culture and processes.
A report due out today is expected to bolster widespread criticism of ACC's repeated breaches of thousands of its clients' privacy since the mass breach was exposed by The Dominion Post. It is also expected to criticise ACC's leadership, privacy systems and the corporation's technology for dealing with highly sensitive information.
Fallout from the March privacy breach has included the resignations of Cabinet minister Nick Smith and ACC chief executive Ralph Stewart, and the departure from the corporation's board of chairman John Judge and directors John McCliskie and Rob Campbell.
The report is being made public on the same day that another by the Auditor-General's Office, on how ACC manages risk at board level, is tabled in Parliament.
Both investigations arose after an ACC client - later identified as Bronwyn Pullar - revealed she had been sent private details of 6500 fellow clients. The information contained names and details of hundreds of people from ACC's sensitive claims unit, including rape and incest victims.
In the ensuing fallout, The Dominion Post revealed that ACC grossly misrepresented what happened at a crucial December meeting between Ms Pullar, her supporter Michelle Boag, and two senior ACC managers.
In a report to ACC Minister Judith Collins, the corporation said Ms Pullar threatened at the meeting to go to the media and to withhold details of the mass breach unless she was given a two-year guaranteed benefit. The corporation laid a blackmail complaint with police.
But a tape recording of the meeting, made by Ms Pullar and provided to ACC, made a mockery of the blackmail allegations. It showed no such threats or demands were made, and that Ms Pullar was already on weekly ACC compensation. After police were provided with a copy of the recording, they dismissed the complaint, saying no offence had been disclosed.
Today's reports are not expected to end the scandal, as Ms Collins has taken defamation action against Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little for suggesting her office was involved in leaking an email identifying Ms Pullar as the whistleblower.
The privacy report has been compiled by former Australian federal privacy commissioner Malcolm Crompton and accountancy firm KPMG. Ms Collins has seen the draft and has said she agrees with it. Ms Pullar and Ms Boag would not comment because they said they did not yet know what was in the final report.

02 July 2012

ACC change must not go too far

An editorial from the New Zealand Herald

Changing the "culture" of an organisation is a subtle exercise, requiring care to see that it does not go too far. The Minister in charge of the Accident Compensation Corporation, Judith Collins, has taken drastic steps to change its culture since the Bronwyn Pullar business. The previous chairman, chief executive, two board members and several officials have departed. Now it has been given new orders: improving "trust and confidence" has replaced "cost containment" as the first priority.
The minister had been under pressure to go much further and change the corporation's primary aim of rehabilitation. Labour and the Greens have criticised staff incentives to get patients back to work as soon as possible. They call it "depriving people of their entitlements". Inevitably, they believe, some people will be driven back to work too soon. It should be remembered that nothing in the Pullar case supported that suspicion. She was aggrieved that the corporation would not provide her with an income but gave the public no evidence to strengthen her claim. Her disclosures concerned other cases accidentally "leaked" to her in an email from ACC.
That privacy breach turned out not to be as serious as she had led the country to believe. The "patient details" were no more than names, a case number that could identify the nature of each name's claim, and an indication of the outcome of a review of their claim.
The Privacy Commissioner has told patients it was mostly inoffensive information at the lower end of seriousness. The corporation has offered them consolation payments of something less than $500. The sum seems proportionate to the offence.
It is much harder to restore a sense of proportion to criticism of ACC's culture. The attitude expressed in messages between ACC staff, which Ms Pullar had also obtained, was as telling as the tape of the meeting in which her supporter, Michelle Boag, mentioned the leak to ACC officers.
The careless language and loose accusations in ACC's internal exchanges were probably the reason the minister took drastic action. It was an insight into a culture that has been been too hard on some categories of claim, especially those requiring surgery, as Herald investigations had found. Too many rejections of those claims have been reversed on appeal.
But it would be too easy to replace that culture with one at the other extreme. ACC cannot be an automatic entitlement with no questions asked. It is an unusual system, copied by no other country, in its uncritical attitude to the cause of injury. "No-fault" compensation may be a good way to save lawyers' fees but the same unquestioning principle could not be applied to medical assessments. When ACC seeks a second opinion, though, its medical officers must not influence it as they clearly tried to do in the Pullar case.
ACC is funded by employers, motorists and taxpayers as insurance against sudden disability. It offers cover that ordinary commercial insurance provides elsewhere. Since New Zealand has to be competitive it is vital that ACC's costs are not out of line with workplace insurance in other places. It has to ensure it is paying out only for genuine injuries and for loss of income only for as long as the claimant is genuinely unable to work.
Ms Pullar reportedly received $1 million from a private company for the injury for which she also sought ACC support. Since private insurance can set its own premiums, within the bounds of competition, it can afford to be more lenient. As a public insurer, ACC has to be rigorous.
But it should also be sensitive, fair, considerate and dignified in its dealings with people and its discussions about them.
That is as far as the culture change need go.

20 June 2012

ACC minister put pressure on bosses to make complaint - Labour

An article from the New Zealand Herald by Adam Bennett

ACC bosses laid a police complaint alleging blackmail by claimant Bronwyn Pullar and Michelle Boag after being pressured by their minister Judith Collins, Labour MP Andrew Little says.
In a general debate at Parliament this afternoon Mr Little claimed that during a meeting between ACC Ralph Stewart, chairman John Judge and Ms Collins in Auckland the day after a massive privacy breach at ACC was revealed, Ms Collins told the two men to "go after Michelle Boag".
"She urged and pressured and pressed the chief executive and chairman of the board to make a complaint to the police and that's what they did".
ACC laid a complaint against Ms Pullar in March a week after she went to the media about the corporation's error in mistakenly emailing her information about thousands of other claimants seven months earlier.
ACC alleged that during a meeting with two ACC managers in December last year, Ms Pullar and her support person, former National Party president Ms Boag threatened to go to the media with the information unless Ms Pullar was granted a two year guaranteed benefit.
However two weeks ago, police said no offence was "disclosed" and a few days later ACC chief executive Ralph Stewart and his chairman John Judge last week resigned.
"She told them to do it and then when the police came back and said there's nothing here... she hung them out to dry", Mr Little said this afternoon under the protection of parliamentary privilege.
Ms Collins has consistently said she had nothing to do with ACC's decision to make the complaint against Ms Pullar.
Ms Collins is currently progressing defamation proceedings against Mr Little and his colleague Trevor Mallard after the pair repeated allegations made in Parliament in a subsequent interview on Radio NZ which linked Ms Collins to the leak of a revealing email about the December meeting.

No return to 'pay as you go'
Ms Collins has ruled out a return to "pay as you go" funding for the corporation, a move opposition parties were backing as a means to make the scheme more affordable.
National abandoned pay as you go and instituted "full funding" for the accident insurance scheme in 1998 when it opened the scheme up to private competition. When Labour took office in the following year it agreed to retain full funding.
Full funding or "pre-funding" means the insurer aims to build up big reserves of cash assets sufficient to make payments to all the claimants on its books for the likely duration of their claim.
Pay as you go means annual claims are largely matched by annual levies and other income and as such it requires lower levies and the corporation to hold smaller reserves.
Labour's current position is that it would retain full funding if it returned to Government, but ACC spokesman Andrew Little recently said his party was reviewing its position and called for a public debate about funding options.
Mr Little noted Ms Collins had not dismissed the possibility of a return to pay as you go in recent comments but this afternoon she did just that.
"Pay as you go is not for us," she said.
"We're not going to burden the next generations with the accidents of this generation and I'm surprised that the Greens and Labour who support the Cullen fund on the same basis that it's pre-funding superannuation would suddenly decide that they want to burden our future generations with the cost of our injuries.
"I think it's somewhat unrealistic and we're actually doing very well on the funding what we're looking at is just some of the levels of pre-funding but in terms of pre-funding it's not for us."

19 June 2012

Sixth ACC casualty as board member leaves

A news report from 3 News by Patrick Gower

The ACC-Bronwyn Pullar privacy scandal has now claimed its sixth casualty. 3 News can reveal another board member, Murray Hilder, has quit. That brings the total to three board members, plus the chair, chief executive and a minister.
But the Government has been keeping Mr Hilder's departure quiet.
“I'm happy to make it public but it's not something I've considered,” ACC Minister Judith Collins says.
She says Mr Murray did not tell her why he was leaving. But a source close to Mr Hilder has told 3 News his skills were "the best in the business", and he simply didn't like the politics from Ms Collins.
"Murray has had a complete gutsful,” the anonymous source says. “It is blatantly obvious why he has buggered off -he does not want to be around this political behaviour."
Labour says the latest resignation was kept quiet because it is a further embarrassment.
“ACC is in chaos at the most senior levels. It is not a very good expression of confidence in the Minister,” Labour MP Andrew Little says.
Ms Collins again faced questions about whether she was involved in discussions about ACC putting the police onto Ms Pullar and Michelle Boag for alleged extortion, and whether it was all about bad blood between Ms Collins and Ms Boag.
But Ms Collins denied it that it was.
The central question has always been about what Ms Collins knew in advance about the ACC's extortion complaint to police.
“In terms of telling me or asking my advice - no - they have simply done it and advised me afterwards... I don't know how many times I have to say it," she says.
But Labour is still not convinced.
“Something just doesn't add up, and the minister isn't giving us straight answers,” Mr Little says.
So an ACC departure that the Government was so embarrassed about, no one wanted to announce it. Half the board the Government appointed has now been either sacked or has jumped ship. Just four of eight board members remain.

© 2012 MediaWorks TV

http://www.3news.co.nz/Sixth-ACC-casualty-as-board-member-leaves/tabid/1607/articleID/258308/Default.aspx

18 June 2012

Money blinds ACC to principles

An article from the New Zealand Herald by Tapu Misa

ACC Minister Judith Collins says the Government wants to restore public trust and confidence in ACC. This comes in the wake of the Bronwyn Pullar affair, which saw the ritual sacrificing of several ACC heads last week, including chairman John Judge.
But maybe it's ACC that needs to trust more. As former National Party president Michelle Boag argued on 60 Minutes last week, ACC's culture problem is that "they treat all their clients as potential fraudsters".
"They sometimes refuse to accept the facts about people," she said. "They are constantly trying to disallow people. I know there are people who rort the system, we see that all the time, but not everybody is rorting the system.
"And when you look at the fact they'd spent nine years trying to get Bronwyn [Pullar] to work fulltime when she can't - look at the man hours involved in that. Look at the effort."
They sound a lot like Work and Income. Claimants and their advocates have long complained about ACC's culture of "disentitlement" and a "faceless, uncaring corporation".
In 2010, the Herald received about 400 complaints from claimants who felt they'd been unfairly denied coverage; many of them had their claims reversed on appeal.
But, ironically, the most telling blow has been struck by a former National Party activist and her friend Boag. Pullar is a serious adversary, even with a brain injury. A former businesswoman, she seems as obsessive and distrustful as anyone would be who's been consumed by a protracted war with a Government behemoth.
She keeps records of everything; she uses sophisticated software to show who accesses her ACC file and how often. And she records meetings and holds on to the files of thousands of ACC claimants sent to her in error.
She seems to have good reasons for her lack of trust given email correspondence in which an ACC staffer she'd never met described her as having a "narcissistic personality disorder" and wrote that she'd "fleeced ACC for 7 years".
In a clear breach of ethics, he'd discussed Pullar with an assessor who was supposed to be independent, and accessed her file multiple times despite being taken off her case.
Both Pullar and Boag have copped harsh criticism. But however clumsily they pursued Pullar's case, and whatever the merits of her claim, the real issue, as the Employment Law Experts group argues, "is the many thousands of claimants who are treated like Bronwyn Pullar, or worse. Many of those people become worn down by the ACC 'machine' to the point where they just give up ... When broken people languish on sickness benefits for years and years because they can't get the help they need, we all lose, both economically and from a humanitarian point of view."
That Pullar, with her high-powered connections, has had to resort to increasingly desperate measures, shows how hard it is for most claimants to make any headway.
"It's very complex," Pullar told 60 Minutes reporter Melanie Read. "It's a medical-legal argument and unless you are physically and mentally, emotionally and financially able to fight it, you won't win."
Judith Collins promises a culture change but it's not clear how different her culture will be from her predecessor's as minister, Nick Smith.
Before he became a casualty of Pullar's nine-year war with ACC, Smith had gone to a lot of trouble to convince everyone that ACC was so broken and broke that it needed urgent and radical surgery.
That seemed to involve carving off the best bits of ACC to feed a ravenous insurance industry, and cutting genuine claimants off at the knees (if they still had any). As one amputee found, not even the loss of a limb spared her from being referred to in derogatory terms and treated shabbily.
As a senior ACC manager noted in a leaked presentation, a pendulum swing since 2009 under the current Government and board leadership had seen a focus on "value for money and where we could achieve savings".
John Key told TV3's The Nation at the weekend that John Judge had done everything the Government had asked of him. He'd presided over a corporation that banked a surplus in excess of $3.5 billion in 2010/11.
So it doesn't seem likely that anything will change. Collins' comments about privacy and information security being top priorities for ACC, and the need for staff to use more appropriate language in their communications, seem almost willfully off-beam.
It's clear that ACC's issues arise from a fundamental disconnection between the philosophy that underpinned its original social intent - for which we New Zealanders gave up our right to sue - and the commercial creature it has become.
In a speech last year, Sir Owen Woodhouse, the architect of the accident compensation scheme, argued that the ACC's original purpose was being ignored "by those who imagine the ACC is merely commercial insurance under another name".
ACC and the principles that underpinned it had unanimous support when it was created in 1974. If we are to abandon its social welfare intent for a commercial one, it should be a matter for national debate.

11 June 2012

Greens call for ACC chair to be removed

A news report from 3 News

The Green Party is calling for ACC chairman John Judge to be removed following a television interview with ACC claimant Bronwyn Pullar.
The corporation inadvertently emailed Ms Pullar details of thousands of claimants, alleged she refused to return it and claimed she threatened to go to the media at a meeting she had with two ACC managers in December unless her own compensation demands were met.
ACC laid a complaint with the police and on Tuesday Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess said no charges would be laid because no offence had been disclosed.
Ms Pullar has claimed she never made a threat, and a 60 Minutes item aired on Sunday said a recording Ms Pullar made of the meeting didn't contain any such threats.
Mr Judge said after police said no charges would be laid that he was satisfied the version of the meeting reported by the ACC managers was "a complete and accurate" account.
Green Party ACC spokesman Kevin Hague says the programme showed decisive action was required from ACC Minister Judith Collins.
He said allegations made "about shonky assessment and claims handling practices, and lack of integrity at the highest levels means that, at the very least, the ACC Minister should remove John Judge as ACC chairman".
Ms Pullar said she went to the media about the privacy breach to bring the spotlight on ACC.
"They're taking advantage of vulnerable disabled New Zealanders and they are actively, systematically taking people off (ACC)."
Former National Party president Michelle Boag, who attended the December meeting with Ms Pullar, said ACC had a culture problem and that "they treat all their clients as potential fraudsters".
ACC declined to respond to Ms Pullar's comments for the programme other to say that when it came to ACC assessments, it used appropriately qualified professionals, and that clients had a right to appeal.

© 2012 MediaWorks TV

http://www.3news.co.nz/Greens-call-for-ACC-chair-to-be-removed/tabid/1607/articleID/257318/Default.aspx

05 June 2012

ACC complaint investigation completed

A press release from the New Zealand Police

Police have completed a preliminary investigation into a complaint made by ACC about a meeting between Ms Bronwyn Pullar, Ms Michelle Boag and ACC officials on 1 December 2011.
The complaint was received from ACC in March this year.
Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess says that there would be no further Police investigation into the concerns raised in March.
"After careful consideration of the evidence now available and a separate legal review of the facts we have determined that no offence has been disclosed."
All relevant parties have been informed of the decision.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1206/S00038/acc-complaint-investigation-completed.htm

15 May 2012

Collins' legal suit set to fail - Little

An article from the Taranaki Daily News by Lyn Humphreys

ACC Minister Judith Collins has no grounds to sue over the ACC leaks row, Labour ACC spokesman Andrew Little says. Mr Little, who is a lawyer, told the Taranaki Daily News while in New Plymouth that he had advice from four different lawyers that Ms Collins had no basis on which to attempt to sue him after comments he made to Radio New Zealand in the furore over the ACC leaks row.
In March Ms Collins sent letters to Radio New Zealand and Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little threatening defamation action over their comments made during an interview about an email written by former National Party president Michelle Boag in relation to ACC claimant Bronwyn Pullar. Ms Collins has stated neither she nor her office played any part in the release of the claimant's name to the media.
Mr Little said he had heard nothing from Mrs Collins since receiving the letter. "She's got to make the next move. Watch this space," he said.
A spokeswoman for Ms Collins said the minister was making "no comment whatsoever" on the defamation action.

01 May 2012

Collins must clarify ACC complaint

A press release from the Green Party

ACC minister Judith Collins must explain why ACC complained to the Police over the mass leaking of privacy information to Bronwyn Pullar, Green Party ACC spokesperson Kevin Hague said today.
The published transcript of a recorded meeting between Ms Pullar, Michelle Boag, and two ACC managers, does not show that Ms Pullar made the comments that ACC has complained to the police about.
Despite being given the recording, ACC has not dropped its complaint and the Prime Minister has suggested the recording may not be completely accurate.
“If Ms Collins has been told by ACC that the recording has been changed, or is not a full recording of the meeting, she needs to tell us that,” Mr Hague said.
“None of this is subject to sub-judice rules. Ms Collins needs to establish and make public exactly how ACC”s decision to make a complaint to Police came about.
“In particular we need to know whether ACC chairman John Judge was responsible for the police complaint, through his overall responsibility as Chair, or whether he was more directly involved.
“If the recording is accurate then ACC’s claims about Ms Pullar are wrong, and Ms Collins must demand immediate answers from her officials and retract the police complaint.
“If she believes the recording is doctored in some way she must say so.
“Whatever actually happened, this raises serious issues of integrity and honesty at a very senior level in the public service.”

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1205/S00005/collins-must-clarify-acc-complaint.htm

Pullar claims recording shows ACC lied

An article from the New Zealand Herald by Adam Bennett

Former National Party insider Bronwyn Pullar made a recording of her December meeting with ACC officials which she claims shows the corporation lied about her using a privacy breach as leverage for financial gain.
Police are investigating ACC's allegations that during the meeting, Ms Pullar attempted to secure a two-year benefit in exchange for the return of sensitive information about 6500 other claimants mistakenly sent to her by an ACC employee in August last year.
Ms Pullar's support person at the meeting was her friend and former National Party president Michelle Boag.
Ms Pullar, who has previously said she used stealth software to track emails she sent to ACC, yesterday revealed she made a recording of the meeting with senior ACC managers Philip Murch and Hans Verberne.
That recording showed that, "neither Michelle Boag nor I threatened to withhold details of a mass privacy breach and go to the media if I did not get a guaranteed two-year benefit payment", she said.
Ms Pullar also said the recording shows ACC's account of what was said at the meeting regarding details of the privacy breach and how it occurred was also incorrect.
However Ms Pullar refused to release the recording or a transcript, saying it contained sensitive personal health information.
In an extract of the transcript published yesterday, Ms Boag is quoted as saying: "I don't want to see headlines criticising the minister and the Government for things that have taken place ... And as I say, I mean we are all supportive of this Government. We do not want to see them embarrassed."
Yesterday, Ms Pullar said ACC had published the account of the meeting in which the extortion allegations were made without asking her and Ms Boag if there was any truth to them.
She had given ACC chief executive Ralph Stewart and others at the corporation the opportunity to listen to the recording.
"Despite ACC having heard a full recording of the meeting they have refused to correct their blatant lie, which continues to smear my reputation and Michelle Boag's."
But Labour's ACC spokesman Andrew Little said irrespective of what happened in the meeting, ACC had still asked for the information to be returned and Ms Pullar had not met that request until the story went public in March.
Mr Little said Ms Boag's subsequent email to ACC Minister Judith Collins after the story of the privacy breach broke clearly suggested some kind of deal had been discussed.
"Even if it wasn't about two years of entitlements, clearly some sort of arrangement was being talked about that was some sort of quid pro quo.
"Today's story, if it does anything, just confirms that the ACC officials may have misled the minister in their report, but it doesn't remove any of the cloud of doubt about the actual nature of the conversation that some deal was being struck to return information that she shouldn't have ever had in the first place."
Mr Little said the report highlighted the need for the various official inquiries into the matter "to hurry up and get on with the job, get some conclusions from some credible sources that we can start to see where the truth might actually lie".
However, Green Party ACC spokesman Kevin Hague said the public would have got the impression from ACC that Ms Pullar went into the December meeting demanding two years' compensation and threatening all sorts of consequences, "and very clearly that didn't occur in that meeting".
Mr Hague said the fact that ACC didn't refer the matter to the police immediately "gives rise to the suspicion that the complaint was essentially designed as a diversion from the scrutiny on its own actions".
"That suspicion is given added weight by the revelations today."
Neither Ms Collins nor ACC would comment on the report yesterday, saying it was not appropriate to do so given the matter was under investigation by various authorities.

30 April 2012

What the ACC recording means

A blog post from frogblog by Kevin Hague

I’ve done a day of media interviews about the revelation that the crucial meeting last December between two senior ACC managers, claimant Bronwyn Pullar and her support person Michelle Boag was recorded. Several journalists have now heard the tape of the meeting and/or read a transcript, and have been reporting today that the tape does not support the ACC contention that Ms. Pullar was engaged in extortion, using threats to obtain benefits to which she was not entitled.
This is important because ACC have made this complaint to the NZ Police, and they are investigating it.

Click here to read the rest of this post.

http://blog.greens.org.nz/2012/04/30/what-the-acc-recording-means/

Recording at odds with ACC extortion allegations

An article from the Dominion Post by Phil Kitchin

A recording of a critical meeting between senior ACC managers and the whistleblower who exposed a massive privacy breach reveals the corporation misled its minister and the public.
The corporation has alleged that client Bronwyn Pullar threatened at the meeting to go to the media unless she was given a guaranteed two-year benefit. It also alleged she said that she would withhold details of the breach involving private details of 6500 other clients – including sexual abuse victims – if her demands were not met.
Once details of the privacy breach were revealed by The Dominion Post, the ACC referred its extortion allegations against Ms Pullar to police.
However, a recording of a key meeting in December between Ms Pullar, her support person Michelle Boag – a senior National Party figure – and two ACC managers is at odds with the corporation's claims that were included in a report ordered by ACC Minister Judith Collins. The ACC was given a transcript of the meeting more than three weeks ago, but has refused to correct its report.
Ms Pullar said it was outrageous that, having been provided with the recording, the corporation was refusing to correct a "blatant lie" on a public report.
Before publishing the report, the corporation did not ask Ms Pullar or former National Party president Ms Boag for their account of what was said at the meeting. ACC also complained to police about the alleged extortion threat before completing its report. The report did not name Ms Pullar or Ms Boag. Their names were subsequently made public following a leak being investgated by the privacy commissioner's office.
The Dominion Post has heard the recording and had obtained an accurate transcript of it. It contradicts several key elements in the ACC report.
The transcript shows:
Neither Ms Pullar nor Ms Boag threatened to go to the media or withhold the data if Ms Pullar was not given a guaranteed two years' compensation.
ACC's statement that it was not given specific details of the breach is misleading. ACC was told the data was "highly sensitive information", including names and details of 6500 claimants.
ACC was not told the data was sent by one of the managers. Ms Boag said an ACC staff member sent it.
After the meeting, ACC said it tried to find the breach by checking all emails from the managers to Ms Pullar but found nothing. After senior ACC staff, including chief executive Ralph Stewart, were given the opportunity to hear the recording, the corporation declined to withdraw its complaint to police.
The corporation said Ms Pullar and Ms Boag were not named in the report and it would not correct the allegation against Ms Pullar.
But Ms Pullar said that the allegation was a misuse of power and "an attempt to smear Michelle Boag's and my reputation".
"Had I not recorded this meeting, it would have been ACC's word against mine."
ACC was told in writing by Ms Pullar in 2010 that any discussions with ACC staff in person or on the phone would be recorded to protect her position and to compensate for impairments caused by a head injury she suffered in 2002.
"Sadly, many ACC clients record their meetings with ACC and its assessors to protect themselves against these underhand types of tactics.
"No claimant who chooses to go the media after exhausting alternative means to get ACC to take their issues of unlawful conduct and breaches of privacy seriously should have to tolerate this kind of harassment."
Media lawyer Steven Price said the tape was recorded legitimately because Ms Pullar was a party to the conversation at the meeting. Parties to a conversation cannot be guilty of illegally recording a conversation using an interception device.
When contacted yesterday for comment on the recording, an ACC spokesman said the corporation would not comment while an investigation by the privacy commissioner was under way.
The Minister for ACC Judith Collins is refusing to comment on the recording. Through a spokeswoman, she said it would be inappropriate to comment while investigations were underway.

© 2012 Fairfax NZ News

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6826982/Recording-at-odds-with-ACC-extortion-allegations

27 April 2012

Collins taking Mallard, Little to court

An article from the Dominion Post

Lawyers for ACC Minister Judith Collins have written to Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little advising them proceedings are being issued against them for defamation.
Mr Little confirmed today he and Mr Mallard had received the letter but was not aware if proceedings had yet been filed in court. He had not been served any papers because the letter asked him to get in touch with an address - and he had no intention of providing that at this stage.
Ms Collins has accused the two MPs of defaming her in relation to a leaked email from former National Party president Michelle Boag. Ms Boag had emailed Ms Collins about a case involving ACC claimant Bronwyn Pullar, who blew the whistle on ACC inadvertently releasing her details about thousands of ACC claimants.

© 2012 Fairfax NZ News

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/6819433/Collins-taking-Mallard-Little-to-court

16 April 2012

MPs get defamation action letters

An article from the Otago Daily Times

Labour MP Trevor Mallard says he has received a letter from ACC Minister Judith Collins' lawyer threatening to proceed with defamation action unless he apologises and reveals his source.
Ms Collins announced last month that she would take legal action against Mr Mallard and fellow Labour MP Andrew Little, as well as Radio New Zealand, for making allegedly defamatory remarks about her over the case of a leaked email about an ACC client. The minister has been accused of bluffing about the legal action. However, Mr Mallard confirmed today that he had received a letter from Ms Collins' lawyer.
"They're asking me to give up my source and my emails, and they are again asking for a retraction and an apology," Mr Mallard told APNZ.
"I'm reserving my position. Clearly I don't make formal responses without advice."
Mr Mallard said he was tempted to invoke a "Arkell vs Pressdram" response - referring to a British case concerning the Private Eye magazine. In the 1971 case, when told by the plaintiff's lawyer that his client's attitude to damages would "be governed by the nature of your reply", the magazine replied: "We would be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: **** off."
The letter from Ms Collins' lawyer gave a deadline of this Thursday.
Mr Little said he had also received a letter and was speaking to a lawyer, but that he "wasn't losing sleep over it".
"Basically it says please apologise the way we've asked you to do before, and if you don't we will proceed," he said.
"Subject to talking further with the lawyer, the letter hasn't changed my view that I don't think an apology is required."
Ms Collins has continued to deny allegations from the Opposition that she or her office was responsible for leaking an email sent to her by former National Party president Michelle Boag. The email gave details about Bronwyn Pullar, the ACC claimant who went to the media last month after being mistakenly sent the details of about 7000 ACC clients.
Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff is investigating how the email got to the media, and Ms Collins has told Parliament she will resign if the leak is found to have come from someone in her charge.

10 April 2012

Preferential treatment at ACC

An editorial from the Otago Daily Times

If it surprises even some MPs that the Accident Compensation Corporation runs a claims process for "important" people, then it is just as well an inquiry by the Auditor-general into how ACC manages conflicts of interest has been announced.
Opposition spokesman on ACC matters Andrew Little had not been aware of special VIP provisions when he spoke on National Radio about it following revelations in the Otago Daily Times last week. That this has come to light as the corporation struggles to emerge from a storm of controversy only adds to the questions surrounding it - particularly as some of that contention relates to suggestions of preferential treatment.
Arguably this is quite a separate "structural" matter, but some rehearsal of the current imbroglio is necessary - if only to distinguish what is at stake in each.
Briefly, then, former ACC minister Nick Smith was forced to resign last month when it emerged he had signed letters on ministerial letterhead that could be construed as intervening on behalf of a friend who had a long-standing claim with the corporation. That friend was Bronwyn Pullar who, anonymous at the time, leaked a list of 6700 ACC claimants to the Dominion Post newspaper on March 13, saying this had been sent to her in error and was a serious breach of confidentiality.
ACC inquired into the leaking and alleged to new ACC minister Judith Collins that the claimant and a support person had sought two years' payments for the return of the confidential list.
On March 18, the Herald on Sunday published details from a letter sent by former National Party president Michelle Boag to Ms Collins. The leaked letter revealed the claimant as Ms Pullar and Ms Boag as her support person. This leak is now the subject of an inquiry by the privacy commissioner. On March 25, the same newspaper divulged details of Ms Pullar's private insurance claim, originally put at $14 million.
Four days later, TV One's Close Up unearthed correspondence to Ms Boag relating to the private claim and referring to Ms Pullar's 28-strong group of supporters, mostly prominent National Party figures including John Key, Jenny Shipley and Wayne Mapp.
Quite apart from the questions relating to who leaked what to whom and why - some commentators are suggesting this is all about future leadership positions in the National Party - there are some pressing issues at stake here.
If the confidentiality breach involving the dispersal of the 6700 claimants to Ms Pullar was simply a careless accident by an ACC staff officer, then systems evidently need to be tightened at the corporation.
If it came to Ms Pullar by other means, then that is more worrying. It suggests malign influences at work either within ACC or among those who have access to its files; it could also mean that ACC's IT security net has been compromised.
Of most concern, however, are the apparent attempts, by Dr Smith, and arguably by Ms Boag, on Ms Pullar's behalf, to use their positions and connections to influence the actions of a state corporation. Even the appearance of having supported preferential treatment for Ms Pullar brings both the corporation and the Government into disrepute.
The ODT's revelations that ACC has a VIP claims policy is a separate issue. Ostensibly, while she was a well-connected National Party activist, Ms Pullar did not qualify for priority treatment. As set out in the corporation's 2007 "delegation manual", there exists a special "claims handling authority" for the Governor-General, members of Parliament, members of the judiciary, ACC board members and members of their respective immediate families.
But the furore around ACC at large should not distract from questions on this policy. Why should certain people have special privileges - mainly relating to privacy and security - pertaining to their claims?
Should not the security of the system be sufficient to protect the privacy of everyone, regardless of status or station in life?
Mr Little did muse on the potential for conflicts of interest for MPs and judges dealing with ACC-related matters. There may be some mileage in this but, given the context of the times, a rather more detailed explanation of the policy than ACC has given to date would be helpful. Hopefully, the Auditor-general's inquiry will shed light on such matters.

04 April 2012

Privacy Commissioner late to ACC leaks

An article from the Dominion Post by Kate Chapman

The first the Privacy Commissioner knew of an alleged privacy breach by ACC was when media contacted her.
Commissioner Marie Shroff is investigating how the personal details of thousands of claimants were accidentally sent to claimant Bronwyn Pullar. That investigation may also look at how Pullar's own personal information, in an email by former National Party president Michelle Boag, was leaked to a Sunday newspaper.
Pullar had contacted the Commissioner about a separate issue late last year, but the first they knew of the leaked spreadsheet containing information about thousands of claims, was when a journalist rang her office.
Assistant Commissioner legal and policy Katrine Evans said it would be normal practice for ACC to contact the Commissioner if they were aware of the breach.
"What I understand, when we first got the media inquiry, we had no knowledge."
The inquiry would look at what happened with ACC, when they became aware, and what they should have done once the knew of the breach, she said.
ACC became aware of the breach in December during a meeting with Pullar. The information was also sent as an attachment in one of many emails from Pullar to the State Services Commission last year but they did not realise they had the information until a review was conducted recently.
ACC Minister Judith Collins is threatening to take defamation action against Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little and Radio New Zealand, over suggestions she was the source of the leaked email about Pullar - something Collins vehemently denies.
Prime Minister John Key said that if and when Collins took defamation action was a matter for her.
"I support her action, she wants to clear her name, she feels very strongly that she was impugned and on that basis she's taken her own action, it's her own money, her own resources, she's free to do that."

Question to Minister

8. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all the answers she has given to questions asked of her to date?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Yes, so long as they are in context and I am not being misquoted.
Charles Chauvel: Why did she tell the House on 21 March that the current rate of breaches of police safety orders is “not anywhere near what anyone else would expect”, only to tell the Waikato Times today that legislation was needed this year to increase the penalty for such breaches, and should the House believe that there is a problem, as she told a newspaper today, or that there is not a problem, as she told the House last month?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, of course, I have been misquoted by the Waikato Times. What I have here is in fact an email from my office to the Waikato Times yesterday, advising it what the correct information was. It misquoted it; it has now retracted it and corrected it.
Charles Chauvel: Why did she tell the House yesterday that the inquiry by the Privacy Commissioner relates to “privacy matters in ACC and what has happened to particular emails and other documents. It is not specifically about my office”, yet when Andrew Little asked her directly last Thursday questions about her office such as “When was the email she received … from Michelle Boag concerning Bronwyn Pullar … first printed by … her office?” she declined to answer, on the ground that the matter was before the Privacy Commissioner, and should the House believe what she said yesterday, or last Thursday, or both, or neither?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Obviously I am right on this matter, because Mr Little’s question was regarding a breach of privacy that has been claimed in relation to something in March. That is part of the terms of reference of the Privacy Commissioner’s review, so I do not know what is wrong with that.
Charles Chauvel: Why did she tell the House yesterday that as Minister of Justice she has no ministerial authority or responsibility for threatening news media and members of this House with meritless defamation proceedings, when she wrote to threaten just such proceedings last Thursday on her official letterhead, which describes her as Minister of Justice?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: This is too easy: because they are not meritless.
Charles Chauvel: How long will this Minister continue to give inconsistent answers to questions put to her, to give spurious excuses to avoid answering inconvenient questions, and to try to bully the media and members of this House via threats of meritless defamation proceedings, and does she not think that the public expects better from the Minister of Justice?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There are four questions there, and most of them insulting. However, what I do know is that the public expects members of Parliament to have integrity and courage, and it is something that member should think about.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister resign if it is found that either she or someone whom she has had authority over was responsible for the leak in question?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of course I would, because I have integrity—something that is lacking for some people. I seek the leave of the House to table the email from my office to the Waikato Times yesterday with the correct information.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): What action—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. There is no way I can hear Nicky Wagner at the back of the House there. The previous question has now been dealt with, and I want to hear Nicky Wagner on question No. 9.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The only point is that as you said that, you looked this way. Actually, it was the Minister again who stimulated the interjections.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The noise I heard coming from my left prevented me from hearing Nicky Wagner, and that is what I was responding to.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1204/S00063.htm

03 April 2012

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