Urgent Debate: Resignation of the chief executive, chairperson, and other board members of ACC

Question to the Prime Minister

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.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1204/S00085.htm

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

Collins' legal threat ill-considered

An editorial from the Manawatu Standard by Michael Cummings

Cabinet Minister Judith Collins has been labelled "thin-skinned" for threatening legal action against two Labour MPs and a news organisation over the ACC privacy fiasco, an accusation that is either sound or scurrilous, depending on whose side you're on.
While some will argue Ms Collins is being, in NZ First leader Winston Peters' words, "a tad hysterical", others will say she has every right to protect her reputation if she thinks it's been unfairly besmirched.
What seems far more clear-cut, though, is the political wisdom of such a heavy-handed response from the ACC Minister. Quite simply, there is none.
This Government has lost complete control of its agenda, lurching from faux pas, to own goal, to scandal as its message is drowned out by a cacophony of peripheral noise.
Ms Collins might feel personally justified in taking defamation proceedings against Radio NZ and Labour MPs Andrew Little and Trevor Mallard, but she's only throwing fuel on a fire her Government needs to extinguish.
Ms Collins has been questioned about who leaked an email containing personal details about ACC claimant Bronwyn Pullar, but says she's "100 per cent certain" the leak wasn't from her or her office. If she's so confident of her position, it would have been eminently more sensible to hold her ground and let the saga blow over.
Instead, she's thrown the parliamentary press gallery another angle to the controversy, which will fill column centimetres that could have otherwise been dedicated to what the Government is trying to achieve to better the lives of New Zealanders.
Much like Prime Minister John Key's handling of the so-called "tea tapes" controversy, Ms Collins' strong stance has only upped the ante, when taking a bit of short-term political pain and moving on would have been much smarter.
National needs to pull itself out of the political mire it's in and get back on message. At the moment, the Opposition is having to do little more than watch the Government repeatedly punch itself in the face, then rub a bit of salt into the wounds.
While the public finds the intrigue surrounding political scandals mildly entertaining, they're far more interested in issues that affect their daily lives – the state of the economy, the cost of living, the standard of health services, the availability of jobs.
If National is to shake itself out of its funk, it needs to be far more disciplined in managing the political agenda. It needs the public to be discussing the merits of its policies, not the thickness of its ACC Minister's skin.

© 2012 Fairfax NZ News

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/opinion/6671451/Editorial-Collins-legal-threat-ill-considered

Accident-prone ACC might face a red card too

An article from the Dominion Post by Dave Armstrong

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

© 2012 Fairfax New Zealand Ltd

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

Why Nick Smith did not have to resign

An article from the Sunday Star Times by Michael Laws

One of the best (or worst) things about New Zealand politics is that we judge our parliamentary representatives through a different prism than we judge ourselves. Despite our daily chastisement of their morals, motives and mendacity, we expect our MPs to be the paragons of moral virtue that we are not. This is because we wrongly believe they have an unparalleled influence over our daily lives.
In fact, most politicians are powerless. Including most cabinet ministers and party leaders. They are merely the front dressing for a legion of faceless folk – policy staff, civil servants, lobbyists and parliamentary staff – who shape their champions on a daily basis.
It has long been a proposition of mine that there is only one political party and they are always in power: the bureaucracy. The average middle manager in any government department's policy unit has more influence over our daily lives than the average MP. The role of most of our elected representatives is merely to entertain.
The debating chamber is a literal circus and the press gallery little more than a Greek chorus. They are easily distracted from the substance of reform and change in this country, and the Nick Smith affair this past week stands as Exhibit No964 that this distraction always works, because to describe the Smith/Bronwyn Pullar affair as petty is to do the word an injustice.
But let's start with Winston Peters' allegations – picked up by any number of mentally addled bloggers (is there any other type?) – that this was all really some sordid love affair gone wrong. It was an allegation that had neither substance nor relevance.
In fact when I put it to Peters on my Radio Live show this past week, the NZ First leader backtracked at a spectacular rate of knots. He had used the word "sex" in the House, because a number of the ACC claimants who had had their details mistakenly released to Ms Pullar, were rape victims. And rape involves sex.
Mr Peters now wants an independent inquiry into this non-scandal because it might prove there really was a scandal. Or not. And we need to know that, he emphatically argued.
Ironically, the person who would benefit best from an inquiry would be Nick Smith. Which is precisely why Prime Minister John Key can't have one. Smith would at least discover who had access to the so-called incriminating letter, and who was most likely to have released it.
At this point in time, ACC stand as most likely to gain from such revelations. They could bat off Pullar's assertions of widespread calumny and distract from their own incompetence in releasing the details of other claimants. And bureaucrats play such games on a regular basis. It is their dark art.
The letter that led to Smith's downfall is incredibly innocuous. It simply states a truth. Bronwyn Pullar is a changed woman since her bicycle accident some decade ago. Nick Smith knows this because he knew her before and after. In the letter he also points out – openly and honestly – Pullar's political connections. And then states and restates that it would be inappropriate to act on her behalf or intervene with any ACC decision. Just that Bronwyn Pullar is not the woman she was.
Apparently the crime is that he stated such on a ministerial letterhead. Oh, whoopdie-do. He played absolutely no role in the decision regarding her claim and had no intention of taking one. Rather, he appears to have written the letter out of sheer frustration that a friend kept bedevilling him for an intervention he could not make.
The "discovery" of the second letter was, of course, irrelevant. It was just the hook required for John Key's advisers to reconsider the potential embarrassment of the prime minister's original defence of Smith's actions.
In retrospect, the inquiry – quick and immediate – would have been the way to go. Key should have suspended Smith ahead of that outcome. Any investigation would have found that Smith's actions carried no weight with ACC.
Ironically, that's the part that I find the most disturbing. That ministers cannot control nor guide nor even influence their own department. Especially when they are wrong. At that point, just employ some nodding nincompoop and use them as an automatic signature machine, which is what most ministers, not so coincidentally, really are.
Yes you might argue that there was a technical breach of the Cabinet Manual. But there are technical breaches of the law every day in this country, and the police choose not to prosecute nor even investigate. In this case, the consequences far outweighed the calumny. But don't we feel virtuous?

© 2012 Fairfax NZ News

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/columnists/6631324/Why-Nick-Smith-did-not-have-to-resign

Questions to the Prime Minister

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.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1203/S00306.htm

Smith inquiry supported by Peters

A press release from New Zealand First

Rt Hon Winston Peters says he supports former Cabinet Minister Nick Smith’s call for an inquiry to clear his name over the letters he wrote as a Minister to help a close friend, Bronwyn Pullar.
This follows Dr Smith’s resignation yesterday and his comments that he would welcome an inquiry.
Mr Peters says Nick Smith “has been hung out to dry” by the Prime Minister and members of the National Party hierarchy who were all in the act over Ms Pullar’s dispute with ACC.
“On Tuesday Mr Key ‘flannelled’ over Nick Smith’s situation yet a letter was soon conveniently found that showed the Minister was unwise and he had to go.
“Now, these two letters and others had been hanging around for many months. The Prime Minister knew of Bronwyn Pullar’s case years ago.
“At least two other MPs, former Cabinet Minister Pansy Wong and MP Nikki Kaye knew about the case and refused to leave their fingerprints on it.”
Mr Peters points out that Nick Smith freely admits receiving ‘a tonne’ of emails from Ms Pullar and the case was obviously known throughout the National Party because she was a high profile member.
“This inquiry has to go beyond the privacy investigation. It has to be widened to include the actions of not only Nick Smith but all the other National Party figures including the Prime Minister himself,” says Mr Peters.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1203/S00295/smith-inquiry-supported-by-peters.htm

Has Key avoided a Darren Hughes moment?

An article from the National Business Review by Bryce Edwards

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

Copyright 2012 National Business Review

Read the rest of this article here.

Nick Smith quits as minister over 'two errors'

A report from One News

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.

© 2012 TVNZ Ltd

http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/nick-smith-quits-minister-over-two-errors-4788009

Minister Nick Smith resigns

An article from Stuff by Vernon Small, Danya Levy and Tracey Watkins

Former ACC Minister Nick Smith has resigned his ministerial portfolios. He has just announced his resignation in the House of Parliament after spending his flight to Wellington this afternoon writing the letter.
Smith was seen by a Fairfax reporter writing the note on, ironically, ACC branded note paper.
The former Local Government Minister and MP for Nelson has been embroiled in controversy over a letter he provided to friend Bronwyn Pullar while he was still ACC minister which was used to advance her ACC claim.
"I have tended my resignation," he told Parliament. "I do so because I made not one error of judgment but two in dealing with a conflict of interest in respect of a friend."
Smith said the first error he made was in July last year when he provided a letter of support for Pullar. He said the letter made plain that he did not mean to interfere with ACC in deciding that claim.
Smith said he had asked ACC to go through all of his correspondence as the minister. He said he did not in interfere in anyway with the way ACC handled that claim. He said his behaviour was not up to the standard expected of a minister.
A heavily emotional Smith apologised to Prime Minister John Key, the house and his constituents.
It follows Key earlier today refusing to express confidence in Smith beyond this afternoon. Key dodged reporters questions on his way into parliament this afternoon, says he will speak to reporters after Smith's announcement.
Smith cancelled events in his electorate and made a last minute change in his flight plans. Arriving about 1.30pm in Wellington, Smith refused to comment on why he'd changed his plans.
Smith yesterday admitted the letter was a mistake and apologised. This morning Smith told the Nelson Mail he had no thoughts of resigning.
At that time, Key told reporters he would not stand Smith down but said that could change later today.
"I'm not in a position where I want to make any comments about Nick Smith at the moment," he told reporters at Wellington's Wellesley College after opening a new library.
"I may be in a position to say a bit more this afternoon."
Pullar was at the centre of a massive privacy breach by ACC, which emailed her names and details of 6752 claimants, including sensitive sexual-abuse cases.
She was a former National Party activist and was supported by a friend and former party president Michelle Boag when she met senior ACC representatives in December to discuss her case and the emailed list.
NZ First leader Winston Peters yesterday told Parliament it was "a shabby little case, involving blackmail, sex, [and] a minister with a conflict of interest". However, Smith today rejected Peters' claim.
"What I have openly done is acknowledged that Bronwyn Pullar was a friend, that I knew her because she was a volunteer of the National Party in Auckland and I knew her from her work as a marketer in the fruit exporting business."
It was a matter of public record that his first marriage broke up while National was in opposition, he said.
"I formed a new relationship in the last five years. I have been absolutely loyal to my wife, Linley. I am very committed to my four children and will be for the rest of my life."
Smith said he wouldn't comment on his private life between his marriages and said he hadn't seen Pullar for four years.

© 2012 Fairfax New Zealand Limited

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6608670/Minister-Nick-Smith-resigns

'Sex' didn't mean what you think it meant, says Peters

An article from the National Business Review by Rob Hosking

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is backing away from any suggestion of an improper relationship involving National minister Nick Smith and party official Bronwyn Pullar. He did not mean what everyone seems to have assumed he meant, Mr Peters told NBR Online.
The row, which blew up when Ms Pullar was accidentally sent a spreadsheet containing sensitive ACC claims data, and when it subsequently emerged that Dr Smith had written a letter support Ms Pullar against the corporation, was the subject of an urgent debate in Parliament yesterday. Mr Peters described the affair as "a shabby little case involving blackmail, sex, a minister with a conflict of interest" during that debate.
Dr Smith has subsequently declined all comment on the issue, saying only "I'm just not commenting on my private life."
Yet Mr Peters now says he was not suggesting, for even a second, anything about Dr Smith's private life. The "sex" reference was only to the fact that some of the information accidentally leaked to Ms Pullar was about people who were claiming accident compensation for sexual assault, he says. The confusion arose, Mr Peters insisted this morning, because he had omitted a paragraph in his prepared speech because he was running out of time.
"I'm glad I kept this," he says about the notes he prepared for the speech, which he happened to have on him when contacted on his cellphone by NBR Online. He was to have said, about the private information, that "this included data which identified some as making sensitive claims for injuries resulting from rape or other forms of sexual assault.
"So there it is: a scandal from a government which holds itself as cleaner than the driven snow, a shabby little case involving blackmail, sex, a minister with a conflict of interest. He should go now. "
He was not trying to suggest any improper relationship between Dr Smith and Ms Pullar at all, he says, but, "unfortunately, in the time I had available, I don't think I got to deal with the third to last paragraph of my speech."
The issue of Dr Smith and Ms Pullar is to feature further in question time at Parliament later today.

Copyright NBR 2012

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/sex-didnt-mean-what-you-think-it-meant-says-peters-rh-p-113755

Nick Smith's job on the line

An article from Stuff by Danya Levy, Tracy Watkins and Vernon Small

Prime Minister John Key appears poised to move against former ACC Minister Nick Smith after suggesting this morning he had confidence in him "at the moment" but that could change this afternoon. When stopped by reporters, Key said he would not stand Smith down - but that could also change later today.
Smith has been embroiled in controversy over a letter he provided to Brownyn Pullar while he was still ACC minister which was used to advance her ACC claim. He yesterday acknowledged it was an error of judgment and apologised. Key said yesterday he had accepted Smith's apology but saw no reason for him to resign.
Key said the letter had not appeared to have influenced ACC because Pullar was still unhappy with the support she received.
Pullar was at the centre of a massive privacy breach by ACC, which emailed her names and details of 6752 claimants, including sensitive sexual-abuse cases. She was a former National Party activist and was supported by a friend and former party president Michelle Boag when she met senior ACC representatives in December to discuss her case and the emailed list.
NZ First leader Winston Peters in Parliament yesterday described the situation as "a shabby little case, involving blackmail, sex, a minister with a conflict of interest, and he should go now".
The comments prompted media questions about Smith's relationship with Pullar.
Smith initially said she was a friend and would not describe her as an intimate but later he refused to comment on his private life. "I have an absolutely wonderful wife, I have four wonderful children ... I have been loyal to my wife during the entire period of our marriage and that I will be till the day I die. I love her and my family so much."
Smith separated from his first wife in 2005 and remarried in 2009.

LABOUR DEMAND SMITH'S HEAD
Labour said Smith was not fit to lead the Government's local government reforms and must be sacked. Labour's ACC spokesman Andrew Little this morning said local government reform was one of the Government's key policies and was being lead by a minister who had shown he would put his personal interests above what was required of him professionally.
"I just don't think he is fit to be leading that level of reform."
Smith would be dealing with a lot of people in his new role as Local Government Minister.
"Are we going to see National Party people in local government favoured over other people in local government? When he acts in that sort of way, these are the questions that arise in the discharge of his ministerial duties. That is why he is unfit to be a minister." The letter revealed he was "way too compromised" and was capable of losing his judgment.
Although ministers often changed portfolios between Parliamentary terms, there were now questions about why Smith lost the ACC portfolio in the December post-election reshuffle.
"There may well now be questions about whether he was taken off that because he compromised himself and that was known. That is why there is still a lot of unanswered questions around the facts and the timeline leading up to this whole thing."
Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff has launched an inquiry into the privacy breach and ACC has contacted police over Pullar who it claims sought two-year's benefit in exchange for the return of emailed list - something denied by Pullar.
Labour is expected to put further pressure on Key in Parliament today to sack Smith.

© 2012 Fairfax NZ News

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6608670/Nick-Smiths-job-on-the-line

Nick Smith under mounting pressure over ACC letter

A news report from TVNZ

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

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

© 2012 Television New Zealand Ltd

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

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

An article from the New Zealand Herald by Adam Bennett

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

© 2012 APN Holdings NZ Ltd

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

Calls for Nick Smith's head over ACC

An article from the Dominion Post by Vernon Small

Prime Minister John Key is under pressure from the Opposition to sack Nick Smith from Cabinet, as questions are raised about Dr Smith's relationship with an ACC whistleblower.
Dr Smith yesterday apologised to Mr Key after admitting he wrote a reference for the woman, Bronwyn Pullar, for her to use in her medical assessment for a claim she had lodged with ACC. The letter, written in July last year when Dr Smith was ACC minister, was on his ministerial letterhead and addressed "to whom it may concern".
Mr Key said he had accepted Dr Smith's apology. But it was an error of judgment to send the letter on ministerial letterhead. In it, Dr Smith had made it clear she was a friend, Mr Key said.
"I think in writing a reference, even though we all have friends, as ministers of the Crown, that's an error of judgment in this particular case."
Ms Pullar is at the centre of a massive privacy breach by ACC, which emailed her names and details of 6752 claimants, including sensitive sexual-abuse cases. She is a former National activist and was supported by a friend, former National Party president Michelle Boag, when she met two senior ACC representatives in December to discuss her case. The leaked list of names was discussed then.
Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff has launched an inquiry into the leak, and ACC has contacted police over Ms Pullar.
But Green MP Kevin Hague called for a separate probe by the auditor-general to look into Dr Smith's role, arguing it was now bigger than a privacy issue.
The roles of Ms Boag and Dr Smith sparked accusations of National cronyism during a snap debate in Parliament.
NZ First leader Winston Peters described it as "a shabby little case, involving blackmail, sex, a minister with a conflict of interest, and he should go now".
That prompted media questions about Dr Smith's relationship with Ms Pullar. Earlier in the day he said she was a friend, but he would not describe her as a family friend or an intimate. But he later refused to comment on his private life.
"I have an absolutely wonderful wife, I have four wonderful children ... I have been loyal to my wife during the entire period of our marriage and that I will be till the day I die. I love her and my family so much."
Dr Smith separated from his first wife in 2005 and remarried in 2009.
In the House in 2003, in an apparent reference to Ms Pullar, Labour MP Trevor Mallard referred to Dr Smith saying: "Well, here we have Bronwyn's mate, chipping away again ..."
Yesterday Labour ACC spokesman Andrew Little said Dr Smith had flagrantly breached his responsibilities and duties. "That minister must go from this cabinet."
But Mr Key said Dr Smith had made his potential conflict of interest clear. "If you are going to sack ministers for what I think he would accept as an error of judgment but not a terribly significant one, you'd be sacking a lot of ministers."
Dr Smith said Ms Pullar sent "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 then said ACC was claiming she was not employable or not in a fit state of health prior to the accident, and he had supplied the reference.
Mr Key said the letter seemed not to have had an influence, because she was still unhappy with her ACC support.

CHEQUERED CAREER
Nick Smith – a member of the so-called "brat pack" from the National government of the 1990s that also included Bill English, Tony Ryall and former MP Roger Sowry – has had a chequered history in Parliament:
In 2000 he used parliamentary privilege to accuse a Nelson lawyer of hounding a woman into bankruptcy over an unpaid bill. It later turned out that the woman, Debbie Mills, had a string of convictions including theft, shoplifting, two excess breath alcohol charges, two for driving carelessly and three for driving while disqualified.
In 2003 Dr Smith was dumped as National's deputy leader just weeks into the job, after being sent home on stress leave when colleagues reported him acting oddly. He had apparently been living on energy drinks after surviving on little sleep following a leadership coup.
In 2004, Dr Smith was found guilty of contempt of court after publicly intervening in a custody battle on behalf of a couple who later lost their appeal for custody of their 7-year-old son, whom the court described as having been seriously traumatised in early life.
It was was not the first time Dr Smith intervened in a Family Court dispute – he also publicised the case of a family who lost control over their children after leaving the Exclusive Brethren. He has also been embroiled in legal battles including a $15 million damages action related to statements he made about timber treatment. A defamation case against him was settled out of court.

© 2012 Fairfax NZ News

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6608670/Calls-for-Nick-Smiths-head-over-ACC

Peters calls for accountability in ACC

A news report from Newstalk ZB

ACC's being urged to find those responsible for a major privacy breach and hold them to account.
An ACC file holding details on more than 9,000 people was sent to an ACC client.
The information included details about sensitive claims cases involving sexual assault and sexual abuse
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says it's terrible breach of people's rights and privacy and accountability is needed.
"You've got to find out who is in charge of the systems that allow this to happen and that person must be held accountable."

© 2012 Yahoo! New Zealand

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/13161462/peters-calls-for-accountability-in-acc/