An article from the New Zealand Herald by Deborah Coddington
Despite the Prime Minister's plea, everyone has not "moved on" from the ACC security breach debacle. It's hugely significant that John Key has twice asked his ACC Minister if she leaked the email from Michelle Boag. His statement on Wednesday was disingenuous: "I've got no reason at all to question her." Obviously he'd already questioned her, and gone on the record about it. Debate now swirls around who did leak this private email that Boag, former National Party president, sent to Judith Collins. Collins sent it to ACC chairman John Judge and chief executive Ralph Stewart. She insists neither she, nor anyone in her office, leaked it. Before the Boag communication was published in this newspaper, we did not know the person who received in error from ACC a spreadsheet with more than 6000 names was Bronwyn Pullar, National Party stalwart, and that she'd badgered former ACC Minister Nick Smith, and other National MPs, for months seeking favours in her fight with ACC to get a benefit. So when her name became public, it was only a matter of time before we knew about the two letters Smith wrote on ministerial letterhead. But though Smith went quickly, the controversy won't die. Now there is to be an inquiry. There are so many things wrong with this picture, and in so many ways. First: why is the taxpayer-funded ACC even expected to pay compensation to someone who, we now know, has already received a million-dollar payout from a private insurance company for her bicycle accident, the same accident for which she's seeking an ongoing benefit from ACC? Can you imagine the scandal that would have erupted if media discovered a National Party insider, with a little help from her MP mates, had secured an ACC benefit because she fell off her bike the day after a night on the town with more of her right-wing mates, lived in a $700,000 apartment, and was already supported by the income from a million-dollar trust, courtesy of another insurance payout? All from the same accident? Another puzzle: Boag has stated that Collins told her if she (Boag) wrote to her, she would have to pass the communication directly on to ACC. Boag is a very smart operator and I just can't understand her charging ahead and sending such a self-incriminating email to Collins if she knew it was going to be sent on to the chairman, and the chief executive, of ACC. Unless Collins was being set up. But there were brain fades all around in this sorry saga. Pullar certainly wasn't thinking straight. She's not a whistleblower, as some insist on calling her. A whistleblower would not have held on to other people's private information from August to December, then allegedly threatened ACC senior managers with it. A whistleblower would have gone straight to the Privacy Commissioner. But this is all about Pullar. When her name became public and her "friend" Smith had to resign, instead of shutting up and going to ground, she kept on digging, blathering away in public. She couldn't even apologise to Smith in private, but hogged the spotlight, then bagged ACC again. And yes, it was a stupid thing Smith did, but it speaks volumes about the type of representative he's always been. Every time he's been in hot water, it's because he's taken his advocacy for constituents a little too far. He's forgotten to think about himself and the consequences for his own career, and that has been his downfall. This time he thought it was for a friend, but a friend wouldn't have asked him to intervene for her in the first place.
An article from the Dominion Post by Tracy Watkins and Danya Levy
Prime Minister John Key has revealed he and his staff took the extraordinary step of combing through his parliamentary and electorate office files for evidence of any official contact with ACC claimant Bronwyn Pullar as her case drags National into a widening ACC scandal. Mr Key said the search confirmed there had been no contact other than at social functions where Ms Pullar had raised her beef with ACC with him. A letter from Ms Pullar's private insurance company Sovereign detailing a $14 million claim was leaked on Thursday. It showed Mr Key's name on a list of high-profile people who were claimed to be Ms Pullar's supporters. Ms Pullar yesterday said Mr Key had not helped her with her claim and she had only one conversation with him about her fight for compensation. "It was at a National Party Christmas function in Auckland when he was the MP for Helensville. I was very distressed at the time and I took the opportunity to vent my frustrations. He listened politely, but I did not ask him to do anything and he did not offer to assist." Ms Pullar said she had been asked by "one of her advisers" to write a list of people who knew about her dispute with Sovereign. The letter referred to her $14m claim but it is understood she settled with the insurer for about $1m. Mr Key said it was nothing new for him to be a victim of name dropping, but he knew he had nothing to hide. "I've never been part of any support group or advisory group. I don't have Bronwyn Pullar's mobile phone or any other phone number in my phone. I've never rung her. I've gone through all my electorate office and/or parliamentary office files. There has never been any correspondence received from her or sent to her," he told Close Up. "If anyone believes I'm not telling the truth, well, bring out the information and good luck to you because you'll have to be imagining a situation I wasn't involved in." National is being torn apart by a series of leaks which resulted in the downfall of former ACC Minister Nick Smith, who got involved in Ms Pullar's case without declaring a conflict of interest over their close friendship. Speculation over the source of one of the leaks this week saw ACC Minister Judith Collins threaten to sue Labour MPs Andrew Little and Trevor Mallard and Radio New Zealand. But after the two MPs failed to meet a 5pm Thursday deadline to apologise, Ms Collins yesterday refused to comment on her next step. Fate drew three of the central figures in the saga – Ms Pullar, support person Michelle Boag and Mr Key – to Queenstown yesterday. Ms Boag was the author of the email to Ms Collins which which was leaked. Ms Collins has denied that she or her office leaked it. But while Ms Boag and Ms Pullar apparently caught up, lunching together in Queenstown, Ms Boag and Mr Key never crossed paths, despite being at the same golf tournament. Sovereign general manager of marketing David Drillien said yesterday he was "very confident" the letter, shown on television had not been leaked by his company. "It looked to me like it was an original that was mailed out." Sovereign had an electronic copy of the letter which was only accessible to a few people, he said.
An article from the New Zealand Herald by Adam Bennett
Prime Minister John Key was last night dragged into the widening ACC scandal and forced to deny a report he was part of a group of senior National Party figures who backed Bronwyn Pullar's bid for a $14 million insurance payout. Mr Key's denial came at the end of a day in which ACC Minister Judith Collins sued Opposition MPs over allegations she leaked an email relating to Ms Pullar, and Ms Pullar claimed she used "stealth" software to monitor ACC's handling of her claim. It also emerged in Parliament that the Green Party recently received the sensitive information about 6700 ACC claimants that was sent to Ms Pullar, sparking the affair, but returned it to the corporation. TVNZ current affairs programme Close Up last night said it had received a letter written by Sovereign Insurance to former National Party president Michelle Boag in 2007. The letter named 28 people, among them prominent National Party figures including John Key and former Prime Minister Dame Jenny Shipley, as supporters of Ms Pullar as she sought a $14 million payout from the company in relation to injuries she suffered in a 2002 cycling accident. The claim, Sovereign said in the letter, was "greatly in excess of her entitlement". Ms Boag is a long-standing friend of Ms Pullar who supported her during her battle with ACC, including attending a December meeting with ACC which has sparked investigations by the police and the Privacy Commissioner. In the letter, Sovereign noted, it had been given a list of members of Ms Pullar's "claimed support/advisory team". The list included Sir Selwyn Cushing, Mr Key, Dame Jenny and Dr Wayne Mapp. Mr Key was at the time the Leader of the Opposition. He has said he met Ms Pullar when he first entered politics - which was shortly after her accident - but had not had any contact with her since he became National Party leader. Last night, he issued a statement saying: "I have not been involved in any 'claims support' or 'advisory team' for Bronwyn Pullar. "The claim in the letter that I was part of such a team in 2007, or indeed any other time, is wrong." Dr Mapp, a former minister who was an MP at the time, last night told Close Up he had met Sovereign to discuss the matter "I simply facilitated some meetings ... they ultimately led to a settlement." The Herald understands that settlement was in excess of $1 million. Ms Pullar did not respond to the Herald yesterday. The letter preceded those that Nick Smith wrote in support of Ms Pullar's ACC claim while he was ACC Minister and which led to his resignation from Cabinet last week. Green Party co-leader Russel Norman last night said the Sovereign letter "raises the question of whether John Key did declare his full involvement in this case". "It also raises the question of whether, in the conduct of his private investigation into Nick Smith's conflict of interest, he too had a conflict of interest. "These are questions that only an independent inquiry can legitimately answer." Ms Collins, the current ACC Minister, yesterday initiated defamation action against Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little and also Radio NZ over allegations about the leaking of an email sent by Ms Boag to Ms Collins concerning Ms Pullar's claim. She demanded an apology from the pair, but Mr Mallard said Ms Collins' action was "an attempt to gag members of parliament, inside and outside of the House". Meanwhile, it was reported that when Ms Pullar emailed Dr Smith's letter to ACC in support of her claim last year, she did so using software enabling her to track each time it was opened and who it was forwarded to without the knowledge of the email's recipients. Internet security expert Peter Gutman, of Auckland University, said such "web bugs" were uncommon. "Spammers use it on a massive scale, and beyond that it's used only by security geeks."
The Green Party says it is now essential an independent inquiry is held into the Bronwyn Pullar affair following the release of correspondence that potentially implicates John Key in the saga. John Key is listed as a supporter of Bronwyn Pullar in a letter to Sovereign Insurance regarding her multi-million dollar private insurance claim in 2007, when he was the leader of the opposition. “This raises the question of whether John Key did declare his full involvement in this case,” said Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman. “It also raises the question of whether, in the conduct of his private investigation into Nick Smiths conflict of interest, he too had a conflict of interest. “These are questions that only an independent inquiry can legitimately answer. “In Parliament John Key ruled out an independent inquiry that could have revealed this potential conflict of interest. “An independent inquiry would establish if the Prime Minister had a conflict of interest at the point that he investigated Nick Smith. “If it is true that the Prime Minister has no knowledge of being named in the Sovereign letter, or that his support of Bronwyn Pullar was as he has previously described it, then he has nothing to fear from an independent inquiry. “New Zealanders have the right to have confidence in the propriety and actions of their Government. Only an independent inquiry can assess that,” said Dr Norman.
A letter leaked to TV ONE's Close Up draws a link between Prime Minister John Key and attempts by former National Party president Michelle Boag to persuade an insurance company to pay up $14 million. It's the latest twist in a saga that started with Boag advocating for her friend and former National Party activist Bronwyn Pullar who suffered a head injury in 2002. The letter, sent from Sovereign Insurance to Boag in 2007, was passed on to Close Up anonymously. The letter names National Party heavyweights, including Key and former Prime Minister Jenny Shipley, in an attempt to get more than $14 million to settle an income insurance claim by Boag's friend Bronwyn Pullar. Sovereign says the claim was "greatly in excess of her entitlement". Boag and Pullar are close friends and have a long association through the National Party. Pullar helped Boag successfully campaign for the party's presidency. The wider party links emerge in the leaked correspondence with Sovereign noting: "We have been supplied with a list of 28 named people who are members of Bronwyn's 'claims support/advisory team'. This list includes prominent individuals such as Sir Selwyn Cushing, John Key, Jenny Shipley and Wayne Mapp." At the time Key was National Party leader and in opposition. After the resignation of minister Nick Smith for writing a letter in support of Pullar, the Prime Minister described his own relationship with Pullar as distant. "I first met her when I came into politics in 2002. She was friends at that point with Michelle Boag and continues to be so," Key said at the time. "I saw her at a few National Party events. For the life of me I can't remember seeing her ever since I've been a leader of the opposition, so it would be a good five or six years."
Claim 'wrong' - Key Key issued a statement today saying he has not been involved in any "claims support" or "advisory team" for Pullar. "The claim in the letter that I was part of such a team in 2007, or indeed any other time, is wrong." Sir Selwyn told Close Up he had gone in to bat for Pullar and he said Sovereign's then chief executive conceded to him they had handled her claim badly. The letter claims Wayne Mapp, who was an MP at the time, also had a meeting with Sovereign. "I simply facilitated some meetings," Mapp told Close Up. "They were very professional and proper meetings and they ultimately led to a settlement." Mapp says he does not know who put the list together. "I've not seen this particular letter myself. What I did was assist Bronwyn, who was assisted by Michelle, for her to be able to get compensation for her injuries based on the insurance policy she was paying for." Dame Jenny Shipley told Close Up she was not aware of any list and had not attended any meetings. She said she did not want to get drawn into it. The Sovereign letter also addresses what it considers threats by Boag if it did not pay the multi-million dollar claim. It states: "For nearly 18 months Bronwyn and her advisers, including yourself personally, have been saying to us that if we did not settle Bronwyn's claims against us in a way acceptable to Bronwyn that she would 'go to the media'. The inference we drew from this was that you would seek to obtain media coverage that would be detrimental to Sovereign." Sovereign Insurance, which is now part of the ASB group of companies, eventually settled a lump-sum payment thought to be over $1 million. Boag initially told Close Up she could not remember the letter and that she does not even remember writing to Sovereign herself. When prompted about the list of prominent people, she said that was Sovereign's definition and she had never supplied any list. On the issue of threats to go to the media, Boag said that was redundant as she had already at that stage talked to the media. Pullar did not return Close Up's calls.
Renewed calls for inquiry The Green Party says it is now "essential" an independent inquiry is held into the ongoing saga. "This raises the question of whether John Key did declare his full involvement in this case," Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said in a statement tonight. "It also raises the question of whether, in the conduct of his private investigation into Nick Smith's conflict of interest, he too had a conflict of interest. "These are questions that only an independent inquiry can legitimately answer. Key has ruled out an independent inquiry to look into potential conflicts of interest. "If it is true that the Prime Minister has no knowledge of being named in the Sovereign letter, or that his support of Bronwyn Pullar was as he has previously described it, then he has nothing to fear from an independent inquiry," Norman said. Otago University political scientist Bryce Edwards said with Mapp admitting he gave his consent for the letter, "there's a lot of smoke" and Key needs to front up. "He has to answer a bit more than just saying 'oh I wasn't part of any team'," Edwards told Close Up. Edwards described the letter as a "remarkable insight" into how the New Zealand political class operates. "It shows how people operate using their well connected friends to basically intimidate people. I think a lot of people will be astounded by this. "There's nothing necessarily illegal about that but it does bring up a sense of legitimacy. "Would the public see this as legitimate to use these connections. I don't think they would."
The letter that led to Nick Smith's Cabinet resignation was repeatedly viewed by an ACC case worker a week before it was leaked to media – and three times on the day before it first appeared in a newspaper. The ACC staffer who reread the letter was previously Bronwyn Pullar's case manager. The case manager – Jo Parker-Dennis – was taken off Ms Pullar's case six months ago, at Ms Pullar's request, after clashes over how her compensation claim was being handled. Dr Smith resigned as a minister last week after it was revealed he wrote a letter supporting Ms Pullar, while he was ACC minister, on July 7 last year. A hunt is on for who has leaked private ACC information about Ms Pullar to media. ACC Minister Judith Collins has repeatedly stated it was not her or her staff. Ms Pullar sent Dr Smith's emailed letter to Ms Parker-Dennis on July 14. Ms Pullar forwarded the email using computer software that allows her to track each time her email has been opened and who it is subsequently forwarded to. Ms Pullar is now demanding answers as to why her former case manager re-viewed Dr Smith's letter four times between March 13 and March 19, the day before the New Zealand Herald published details of the contents. Ms Parker-Dennis opened the letter three times the day before the story broke, Ms Pullar said. She believes Ms Parker-Dennis had no legitimate reason to re-read the letter, given that she was no longer her case manager, days before its contents were leaked. "So why did she seem to have such pre-occupation with that email [this month] and none at all with others around the time the letter was sent by Nick?" The NZ Herald reported the anonymous source who leaked Dr Smith's letter was an ACC client who contacted the paper because she did not get "those kind of privileges ... we don't get to have meetings with senior managers or the board". ACC declined to comment on Ms Parker-Dennis' actions yesterday, citing the independent review under way of the corporation's processes and procedures. The Dominion Post revealed on March 13 that ACC had committed one of the biggest privacy breaches in New Zealand history when a staff member accidentally emailed thousands of clients' details. Ms Pullar was later identified by media as the recipient. Ms Parker-Dennis reopened Dr Smith's letter at 12.37pm on March 13. It was the first time she had opened the document this year, Ms Pullar said. "She had no business going back into my file because if she was looking for the email containing the mass privacy breach ACC had been clearly told that was an email sent to me, not one I sent to them." The email tracking software Ms Pullar attached to Dr Smith's email shows it was received by Ms Parker-Dennis on July 14 last year. Ms Parker-Dennis forwarded the email to three senior ACC managers. Ms Pullar said she later had Ms Parker-Dennis removed as her case manager because the pair had developed a "fractious" relationship. Ms Pullar's ACC claim relates to compensation for a head injury she suffered in a 2002 cycling accident. ACC had suggested she had a pre-existing "mental health condition" before the accident. But Ms Pullar said she was medically certified fit to hold a pilot's licence. ACC was "fully aware" she had no previous mental health or neurological conditions. "It was typical of how ACC is going on fishing expeditions of so many of its clients to collect medical records that have no relevance to their injury claim as a way to get rid of clients and reduce [ACC's] liabilities."
TIMELINE March 13: The Dominion Post reveals an ACC claimant, later identified as Bronwyn Pullar, had been emailed details of 6752 ACC clients. At 12:37pm that day – 242 days after first receiving a letter from then ACC minister Nick Smith – ACC case manager Jo Parker-Dennis reopens that email. March 19: Ms Parker-Dennis again re-reads the email containing Dr Smith's letter at 10.22am, 10.43 am and 3.22 pm. March 20: The day the New Zealand Herald publishes the contents of Dr Smith's letter, Ms Parker-Dennis again opens the email at 9.51am.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.
Kevin Hague: Given his answers that no further independent inquiry was needed into matters to do with ACC and that the Prime Minister had conducted his own investigation, what was the nature of his private investigation, and what evidence did this investigation consider?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The answer given on the previous day in the House was that the Prime Minister had considered this matter, along with Dr Nick Smith, in relation to the Cabinet Manual and the responsibilities of Ministers when it comes to conflicts of interest.
Kevin Hague: Did the Prime Minister’s private investigation ascertain whether his previous Minister, Nick Smith, had intervened in any other ACC claims besides Ms Pullar’s?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I cannot answer that question. What I can say is that the matter related to the former Minister’s handling of the case as it related to requirements in the Cabinet Manual. That was the Prime Minister’s primary investigation, and, ultimately, the Minister paid a very high price for the decision that they both agreed on.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you might have clicked at the point that I did—as the Minister said “On behalf of the Prime Minister,”. I think he might have meant that because he was answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, he could not answer the first part of the question. It is relatively important, because otherwise the Prime Minister is on record as saying that he did not look into, or he did not know about, the other private matters.
Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the intervention from the member. If the Hon Gerry Brownlee wished to clarify that, he is welcome to do so, but he does not have to.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: For the sake of clarity, the second part of that question can be answered on the part of the Prime Minister, but I am not in a position to answer on the Prime Minister’s behalf on the first part of it.
Kevin Hague: Did the Prime Minister’s private investigation consider the 45-point list of serious legislation, guideline, and code breaches by ACC raised by Bronwyn Pullar?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am not able to answer that question on behalf of the Prime Minister.
Kevin Hague: Did the Prime Minister’s private investigation look into who had leaked Bronwyn Pullar’s name to the media, and whether this leak originated in a Government Minister’s office or from ACC itself?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member keeps referring to the Prime Minister’s private investigation. From the answers that were given relating to the primary question that is here today—answers given to all questions asked by that member in the House on 22 March—I think that is an interesting sort of leap for him to take. But in answer to the question, I am not able to answer that on behalf of the Prime Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: We have a slight difficulty there in that the Minister sought a point of order that was not really a point of order, because the member asked a question, and the Minister has now answered the question in so far as he says he is not able to answer the question. But the member is entitled to ask his questions. He made it clear in his first supplementary question that the Prime Minister had made reference to an investigation in his previous answers, and the member is entitled to ask questions. Whether the Minister can answer them is another matter, of course, while acting on behalf of the Prime Minister. But that was not an appropriate point of order.
Grant Robertson: Has the Prime Minister asked the Minister for ACC, as part of his investigation, who she believes leaked the information about Bronwyn Pullar to the media?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No.
Kevin Hague: Did the Prime Minister’s private investigation determine when the ACC Chair, John Judge, first learnt about the massive breach of confidentiality that had occurred, the potential involvement of the then Minister, and the very serious claims Miss Pullar was making about failure of good process?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are a number of questions inside the member’s question that I think conflate a number of different points along the way in this particular story. What I can confirm is that investigations were made into the propriety of the reference written by Dr Smith. It did not meet the standards that were set and expected, and therefore the Minister has resigned.
Kevin Hague: Given his response to these questions today and the fact that neither the Privacy Commissioner’s inquiry nor the police inquiry can possibly consider any of them, will he not support calls for an independent investigation into these wider matters, or does he have another reason for trying to prevent these matters from being independently investigated?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There is no attempt at all to hide anything in these cases, and I resent the member’s implication that that is what is happening.
2. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for ACC: Does she have confidence in the Board of ACC?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): Yes.
Grant Robertson: When she told the media this morning that only herself, one staff member, chairman John Judge, and the chief executive of the ACC had the information about Bronwyn Pullar, which of these people does she believe leaked that information to the media?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is not correct. What I said was that Miss Boag sent the information to me and one staff member in my office. I did not send it to anyone else. My staff member sent it to the chief executive of ACC and the chairman of the board, as I requested her to. It was not sent anywhere else from my office.
Grant Robertson: Given that answer, does she believe that board chair John Judge leaked the information about Bronwyn Pullar?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have asked Mr Judge, and he has denied the allegation.
Grant Robertson: Given her statement to the media that she has ruled out herself and her office as the source of the leak, will she rule out board chair John Judge or chief executive Ralph Stewart as the sources?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: This information that was released to the media is information belonging to Miss Pullar and Miss Boag. If either of those people wishes to make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner, then I would support them in doing that. It is not for me to speculate as to who released it. I am simply saying that I am 100 percent certain that it was neither me nor anyone in my office—100 percent certain; absolutely.
Grant Robertson: Does she accept that by ruling out herself and anyone in her office and saying that the email went only to John Judge and Ralph Stewart, she is implicating both of them in the leak?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.
9. ANDREW LITTLE to the Minister for ACC: Which of the investigations now underway in ACC – the Malcolm Crompton-led investigation into privacy issues or the Police investigation into alleged blackmail – will deal with the disclosure of former ACC Minister Nick Smith’s letter regarding Bronwyn Pullar to the media?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): I am not convinced that either investigation is likely to deal with the disclosure of this letter, as Dr Smith released the letter himself to the media following confirmation from Ms Pullar that she was happy for him to do so. However, if the Privacy Commissioner or the police wish to look into this, then that is a matter for them.
Andrew Little: How did a communication from former National Party president Michelle Boag about her involvement in Bronwyn Pullar’s case, and intended only for the Minister, get disclosed to the media, including social media?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is a matter that I would like to know the answer to. However, any people who send me information about ACC can expect that I will send it straight to ACC. That is what a Minister does.
Andrew Little: Does she believe that it is appropriate for Ministers or their staff to disclose to the media, including social media, personal information held by departments, agencies, or Crown entities about people who criticise the Government?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Certainly not.
Andrew Little: What assurance can she give ACC claimants who are finding decisions on their claims frustrating and difficult that their concerns are being taken seriously by ACC, and that they too will not find their details leaked to the media, including social media?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am very concerned about the privacy issues. That is why I asked for a report from ACC—I made sure that that was available for the public to see on the website a few days after the leaked emails—in terms of the information that Ms Pullar had, and she had put out to the Dominion Post. I was very concerned about that. That is why I am very much obliged to the Privacy Commissioner for the work that she is doing to, in fact, lead this inquiry into the privacy issues around ACC. I actually think it is extremely important that this issue be dealt with properly.
An article from the Sunday Star Times by Kirsty Johnson
Embattled insurer ACC has been caught out scrambling to shut down yet another privacy breach in the very week it has been forced to accept an audit into its handling of client files. The inquiry was commissioned by ACC and the Office of the Privacy Comissioner in the ongoing fallout after the Dominion Post revealed ACC sent whistleblower Bronwyn Pullar 6500 clients' private details, including the names of sexual abuse and violent crime victims. The saga also claimed the scalp of former ACC Minister Nick Smith who stood down from his cabinet portfolios after it was found he sent correspondence to ACC about Pullar - a friend of Smith and former National Party activist - without declaring a conflict of interest. The latest breach came about when ACC claimant Garth Paul asked to see his file - he had to make repeated requests to get the file as ACC sent only some documents. In the end, ACC sent him a file belonging to a different person. Paul advised ACC it had sent him another person's file, but did not reveal whose it was. He did however contact the man whose file was sent out. The Sunday Star-Times has spoken to that man. We are not naming him to protect his privacy. "I was so angry when I found out. But it's typical behaviour of ACC," he said. "I said to him [Garth Paul], hang on to it [the file], use it to show what they're like." He and Paul say ACC's systems are so bad the case managers cannot work out whose file they breached and have yet to contact the client to let him know his file was wrongly sent out and apologise. If it were not for Paul contacting him, he would be unaware of the error. He is grateful his file went to Paul who handled the matter sensitively. The botch-up and inability of ACC to determine whose file was sent and how backs up other claims of sloppy practices. Dunedin ACC client Bruce Van Essen has had an ongoing battle over breaches of his privacy. He says the ACC computer storage of clients' confidential medical records is so primitive the records can be viewed by virtually every employee from a mailroom assistant up. Van Essen found his ACC files had been accessed 2800 times since 2006 - a figure he said could not be justified by everyday claims management. Pullar said her file had been accessed 2000 times over three-and-a-half years by a total of 137 people. On Thursday ACC chief executive Ralph Stewart and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff announced audit firm KPMG and Malcolm Crompton, a former Australian federal privacy commissioner, would probe the Pullar privacy breach. The Sunday Star-Times found the privacy commissioner received 61 privacy complaints about ACC in the last year. Of those, 15 were found to have substance and were subsequently settled. One has been referred to the director of Human Rights Proceedings, who will decide if it will go to a tribunal hearing. The figures show ACC privacy concerns are endemic. There were 57 complaints to the commissioner in 2009/10 and 43 in 2008-09. "I think this kind of thing happens a lot more than we know," said counsellor and ACC advocate Ian Brown, whose clients include Garth Paul. Brown said that even as officials scrambled last week to resolve the fall-out from the Pullar breach, managers from a Christchurch ACC office were making endless calls to Paul, to try to retrieve the file sent to him in error. Just before Paul went public with the privacy breach, ACC manager John Doidge sent him a letter on Monday, March 19, telling him to return the file within 24 hours. ACC refused to comment on the latest breach, with the board chairman and chief executive citing the pending inquiry as preventing them from discussing breaches or privacy issues. The inquiry is expected to take three months, which means the ACC position on comment blunts discussion of privacy breaches that surface in the meantime. ACC's initial response when Pullar's claims were made public was to issue a report to new ACC Minister Judith Collins - without speaking further to Pullar - and to allege she tried to blackmail ACC over return of the files. It then said it had referred the matter to police. Pullar denied any blackmail attempt and said ACC was trying to defame her. Brown said receiving another person's file was not the only evidence Paul had of privacy breaches. ACC had also allegedly contacted his mother about his case without permission, which backs Pullar's claims of the treatment meted out to her. Brown said Paul had been treated appallingly by ACC. He claimed staff weren't interested in rehabilitation, people, or their privacy. "In her criticisms of ACC, I don't think [Pullar] was being over-the-top, I think she was being gentle. As one of my clients has told me, if he was a dog, the SPCA would have been prosecuted over his care."
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?
An article from the New Zealand Herald by Fran O'Sullivan
Thousands of ACC claimants have good reason to be incensed at the way former National Party insider Bronwyn Pullar and her "support friend" Michelle Boag allowed them to be used as leverage in a failed power play. It is crystal clear that Pullar - with Boag's implicit agreement - retained the confidential ACC records file she was accidentally sent last August. This file is said to have contained details of claims filed by 6700 individuals among them 250 claims from injuries resulting from sexual abuse or sexual assault. Many claimants will be incandescent with rage at the obvious - even if accidental - breach of privacy. But even though Pullar maintains she has been fighting a decade-long battle to screw a better deal out of ACC and has alleged her own privacy was breached by officials on 45 separate occasions, she did not immediately alert the corporation that the file had turned up in her inbox. Nor did she return the file or delete it from her own email cache. (It became public when the file turned up in an investigative reporter's hands six months later). Boag knew this when she agreed to go with Pullar as her "support friend" to an ACC meeting last December. The file quickly became a point of contention. It was alleged that ACC offered Pullar two years' payments so she could re-establish her business on the condition the file was returned. ACC denies this. But in an email to ACC Minister Judith Collins last week, Boag maintained a verbal agreement was discussed after she and Pullar urged an investigation of the privacy breach "for the sake of your ministry, your board, your CEO". The Boag email is reported to have said it was "verbally agreed" the information would be returned "on agreement on the way forward". Boag went on to say ACC should deal with the privacy breach internally - "I am a supporter of this Government and I also call [former ACC minister] Nick Smith a friend. I don't want him embarrassed. I have friends on the ACC." Any Cabinet minister sitting in "The Crusher's" shoes - particularly a politician with as strong an instinct for self-preservation as Collins has - would quickly have worked out the impact of Boag's email was they were also likely to be dragged into the same mud-pool which subsequently swallowed Nick Smith. The ACC Minister would quickly have reached the conclusion that all Boag's email did was to compromise her. Hence she sent it to the ACC . Collins' fingerprints will not be directly attached to the copy of the Boag email that was later leaked to the Herald on Sunday. But the ACC Minister, who is a former Law Society president, will not be shedding any crocodile tears over Pullar's predicament. Nor will she be concerned at Boag's embarrassment after she was hung out to dry. Pullar is currently in the public spotlight. But a great deal of the blame for this fiasco has to be put at Boag's door. A political "hard ass" of the first order, her style is to get extremely aggressive when cornered. Hence her fury at finding out from the Herald on Sunday that her email had been leaked. What did she expect? A more skilful operator would have insisted that Pullar return the file before the December meeting so there could never be any suggestion that the pair were trying to blackmail ACC into dishing out more benefits. But Boag's approach is clumsy. Her record at managing conflicts of interests is not impressive. As National Party president she threatened to have expelled from the party any official who had been involved in an SFO complaint over secret donations from Fay Richwhite that did not go immediately into party coffers. Yet, she had previously been Fay Richwhite's PR flack. She got in hot water with the Davison Commission over the secret filming of New Zealand First leader Winston Peters at the "Winebox" tax-dodging inquiry. Despite her reported comments that it was untrue that the Fay Richwhite-funded film was to be used in a hatchet job on Peters, the film crew gave the impression to the inquiry that its film would ultimately be used for more than simple record purposes. She subsequently stood down as a Television New Zealand director and as National's communications chairwoman after a story was published pointing out her position was untenable. The upshot of failing to give her friend clear advice that it was inappropriate to discuss the privacy breach in the same meeting that Pullar's own circumstances were to be canvassed could have only one outcome. Embarrassment all round and grounds for a full inquiry.
An article from the New Zealand Herald by Audrey Young
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner and the ACC Board have jointly commissioned an inquiry into the privacy breach in which information about more than 6000 claims was emailed to ACC claimant Bronwyn Pullar. KPMG and Integrity Solutions Pty Ltd (IIS) led by former Australian Federal Privacy Commissioner Malcolm Crompton have been commissioned to conduct the inquiry. New Zealand Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff said the inquiry would look into the circumstances surrounding the particular incident. "The inquiry will also look more widely at whether systemic or organisations weaknesses exist in the way personal information is handled by ACC." The privacy breach occurred in August last year. Bronwyn Pullar and her advocate Michelle Boag, a former National Party president, met with ACC senior manager Philip Murch in December last year to discuss it and the breach was publicised last week. Former ACC minister Nick Smith resigned from cabinet this week after the Herald revealed he had written a reference for Ms Pullar last year and personally handled a complaint about her case in 2010. Dr Smith's involvement in the case is not part of the newly announced inquiry. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has been involved in finalising the terms of reference and suggesting Mr Crompton for the role as an expert independent reviewer. Individual privacy complaint about the data breach will be handled as usual by the Privacy Commissioner complaints investigation process, Mrs Shroff said. The inquiry will commence on March 28 and is estimated to take three months. The review team will report its findings to the ACC Board and the Privacy Commissioner and its findings will be made public. ACC has also referred the matter to the police. Mrs Shroff issued her statement at the same time as the ACC issued its statement on the inquiry.
Can ACC claim compo for shooting itself in the foot? It should. This has been a hugely damaging fortnight for ACC. And I say that with all due respect to the mea culpa of ACC chief executive Ralph Stewart over the whole business. And what a murky and sorry business it is too. So let me try and shine a light through it for you. I've spoken to Stewart, to Bronwyn Pullar - the ACC claimant who received the spreadsheet containing details of more than 6000 ACC clients - and, most importantly, I've seen the spreadsheet itself. It's the blandest looking thing you can imagine. It's like graph paper. It has several pages, each of which contain information. The first three or four pages contain break-downs of how ACC branches around the country are performing. You might wonder why no one at ACC cares about that being released: the answer is that ACC essentially has a monopoly, so the information isn't even commercially sensitive. Big deal. The meat in the spreadsheet is the list of claim details. Imagine a column of boxes. Each one has a number. Next to it, another column of names (these had been removed when we saw it, for privacy reasons, obviously). Next to that, details of the ACC branch. Then the type of claim, in the briefest form imaginable - "work accident" was the most descriptive I saw. There was a column containing the outcome of the claim. Now given that this spreadsheet contained only details of claims under review, it's not surprising that all the claims I saw had been declined. After all, that makes sense. No one would ask for their claim to be reviewed if it had been accepted. The last column showed whether the claim had been referred for dispute resolution. Now there is absolutely no doubt that information should never have been sent out. But we didn't see any medical records, or other personal information like addresses or phone numbers. You can draw your own conclusions as to how offended you'd be if you were on that spreadsheet. I've taken many calls from people who are. Certainly if you were one of the clients of the Sensitive Claims Unit, which treats victims of sexual abuse, you'd have every right to be horrified. I've interviewed ACC chief executive Stewart several times. He looks like a man who needs a good night's sleep. I believe that he is genuinely apologetic and sincere. That's not to say he hasn't made mistakes. In my first interview with him, he told me the primary information in the spreadsheet was the name, claim number and branch number.
Not good enough When ACC claimants started telling me otherwise, he confirmed other information was contained, and he hadn't told me because it wasn't "primary" information. Not good enough, I'm sure you'll agree. This wasn't the time to hide behind semantics. Full and open honesty is always the best policy. To be fair to him, Stewart's been upfront with me about everything else, and I believe he wants to make sure such a breach never happens again. He and ACC minister Judith Collins say the employee who sent out the email is distraught. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt on that one. What a smart operator Collins has been during this. You can only imagine the phone conversation between Collins and Stewart that morning the scandal broke. Could have stripped paint, I imagine. Then she let Stewart twist in the wind for a whole day, doing interview after humiliating interview. Then, having created a safe distance between her and the debacle, she fronted up to counter-attack Pullar for not giving the information straight back. That strategy seemed bizarre until it emerged ACC was indeed asking police to investigate. Which made Collins seem prescient and progressive. And what of Pullar, the woman who received the spreadsheet? In my interview with her for ONE News, she was adamant she's done nothing wrong and will be cleared of trying to blackmail ACC over the return of the file. Her passion and conviction were unmistakeable. Nick Smith's demise over writing letters for Pullar is a separate issue. It's getting lumped in with the privacy breach, but it shouldn't. It's nothing to do with it. And combining the two issues to strengthen calls for an inquiry into ACC is off the mark. Smith wrote those letters, not ACC. And he's paid the price. Let's hope the Privacy Commission's inquiry looks at the sharing of files about sensitive claims between different ACC branches. Because that definitely warrants further scrutiny. It appears to be at an unacceptable level. Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff, who will be involved in investigating ACC, made a good point to me. She said that this sort of inadvertent breach is a result of the electronic age. And it should be a reminder to us all to use care and safeguards with emails. The privacy breach was bad. Unacceptable. But it was an accident. And after all, Accident is ACC's first name.
Auditor-General Lyn Provost says she is considering requests for an independent inquiry into the Accident Compensation Corporation. Dr Smith resigned on Wednesday after admitting he had written a reference under ministerial letterhead for Bronwyn Pullar, who is a friend, and failed to declare a conflict of interest when dealing with the case. Opposition parties say there should be an independent inquiry to find out more about ACC's handling of Ms Pullar's claim, and whether there was ministerial interference. Lyn Provost says this type of inquiry would involve a significant commitment of time and public funds. She says she needs to make sure she understands the issues, as well as the work being done by other agencies, before she makes a decision. Prime Minister John Key has rejected opposition calls for such an inquiry though Dr Smith supports an investigation. ACC chairman John Judge has said the corporation's board would co-operate fully with any inquiry.
An article from the New Zealand Herald by Adam Bennett
Bronwyn Pullar wrote to Cabinet Minister Nick Smith 18 months ago accusing him of covering up corruption at ACC and warning him he would need public relations help in the face of anger over ACC policies. In an emotional letter, she said ACC was "rotten to the core" and said she had numerous examples of ACC claimants' rights being trampled on that would "seriously embarrass you". The letter was sent in October 2010 as part of Ms Pullar's battle to get funding for treatment for her injuries. She also sent it to the Herald which was investigating the high number of injury claims turned down by ACC on the basis of a pre-existing degenerative condition. "This is NOT a mistake as you are making out Nick," Ms Pullar wrote. "You are just covering up corruption that is alive and well within ACC. ACC is rotten to the core and I have numerous examples that could seriously embarrass you, over and above this." She wrote that the "abusive processes" had to stop. "Good luck fighting it Nick in the media. You are going to need big PR help on this one. It is everywhere!" The letter emerged yesterday as Labour continued to demand an independent inquiry into the scandal that brought down Dr Smith. ACC chairman John Judge yesterday confirmed it was Ms Pullar's approach to another old friend, ACC board member John McLiskie, last year which led to a controversial meeting with senior corporation managers in December. Ms Pullar yesterday issued an apology to Dr Smith, who she said was "only trying to help a mate" but she also detailed her own privacy grievance against the corporation. A senior minister in John Key's Government, Dr Smith resigned his portfolios this week after the Herald revealed he had interfered in ACC's handling of his long-time friend and National Party activist Ms Pullar's claim while he was ACC Minister last year. Revelations about two inappropriate letters he wrote in support of Ms Pullar's claim emerged amid an ongoing scandal over a huge breach of privacy by the corporation which in August last year accidently sent Ms Pullar a file containing the personal details of 6700 other ACC claimants. In the December meeting Ms Pullar allegedly tried to extract benefits in exchange for returning that information. Labour's ACC spokesman, Andrew Little, said it was known a board member was involved in setting up that meeting. "There's a question about what he knew at what time and his role in the December meeting." Mr Judge confirmed Mr McLiskie was the ACC board member who Ms Pullar approached with her claim some time after she received the information. The Nelson-based Mr McLiskie, like Ms Pullar, is a former employee of apple marketing firm Enza. "He knew her," Mr Judge said. However, it was not unusual for board members to be approached by friends and acquaintances about their claims and there were strict rules about such approaches. "She spoke to John, he quite properly asked for it to be put in writing which was done. It was passed to me, I passed it to a senior staff member and asked them to review it and give me the appropriate assurances." The ACC yesterday confirmed that ACC's Philip Murch, who met Ms Pullar, would have seen the letters Dr Smith wrote in support of her but Mr Judge said that would not have influenced his treatment of her. "I absolutely don't believe it would have made any difference whatsoever." Meanwhile, the Prime Minister was yesterday resisting calls for an independent inquiry. "Everyone has moved on. There is nothing I have seen in the paperwork I have that gives me concern about the need for an investigation." However, Dr Smith himself has said he would like an independent investigation in order to clear himself of any other improper action while ACC 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.
An article from the New Zealand Herald by Adam Bennett
Bronwyn Pullar, the woman who cost senior Cabinet Minister Nick Smith his job this week, has apologised to him this afternoon. In a statement she said she was "very sorry" Dr Smith resigned yesterday, saying it was an "unintended consequence'' of her actions. Dr Smith resigned yesterday as it emerged he had at least twice intervened in Ms Pullar's ACC claim while he was ACC Minister in the last term of Government. "It is truly regrettable. I know you were only trying to help a mate - I wish you well Nick," Pullar said in a statement issued to Fairfax media. Two weeks ago Ms Pullar, who suffered head injuries in a 2002 cycling accident, went to the media with data about 6700 ACC claimants, including victims of incest and sexual abuse. The information appears to have been accidentally emailed to her by an ACC employee in August last year. ACC alleges Ms Pullar attempted to secure a two year guaranteed benefit in exchange for the data, a claim that Ms Pullar disputes. In her statement today, she said an ACC staff member had improperly accessed her claim file and lied to management about it. She said ACC had early this week leaked her name to the media. "[ACC] set out to intentionally destroy my privacy and reputation - an excellent example of how little regard ACC has for claimants' rights including respect for their privacy. "It shows how ACC treats claimants with disdain. It show how ACC will smash anybody who dares speak out. Yet I am not easily intimidated," she said. Last night, Mr Smith - who resigned his portfolios in an emotional statement to Parliament yesterday - said he would not comment on the nature of his relationship with Ms Pullar, "except to say I have a wonderful wife and family who are actually very distressed today, that I have been absolutely loyal to my wonderful wife and I will be to the end of my days". The Nelson MP said he was not going to get into a commentary over who he had been in relationships with. "I think many of you may be involved in relationships and if you were required to give evidence and other information and that if 10 years later you were asked how would you describe that person, we don't normally talk about our intimate private lives in public and I think it is quite proper, providing it doesn't change the circumstances, to say that person was a friend." When Dr Smith met Ms Pullar in the 1990s, she was a volunteer regional communications manager for the party and worked for Enza which did a lot of business in Dr Smith's electorate. She now works in branding and marketing and has previously been a brand manager at Zespri, a brand consultant at Frucor Beverages and a consultant at Carter Holt Harvey.
There’s nothing quite like a ministerial resignation to send political insiders and journalists into a frenzy. There are big issues arising from Nick Smith’s interference in Bronwyn Pullar’s ACC claim. Such as:
• Are the four letters that Nick Smith wrote concerning Ms Pullar’s claim the extent of his interference in her claim, or is there more?
• Did he interfere in other claims also?
• What effect did Nick Smith’s interference have on ACC? As everyone has pointed out, an ACC case manager seeing a letter from the Minister on the file is highly unlikely to be unaffected, and perhaps his involvement explains why two senior managers fronted up for a meeting with Ms Pullar.
New Zealanders are entitled to have confidence that there will not be political interference in ACC claims. We cannot have that without a full and independent investigation of these and other matters. On Tuesday, I wrote to the Office of the Auditor-General asking her to initiate such an investigation. I’d also be happy if some other form of independent inquiry (retired Judge, Commission etc) were used, so long as it occurs.
But let’s remember that Nick Smith’s political interference was uncovered because of arguably the greatest breach of privacy in New Zealand history, with confidential information relating to almost 7,000 people being leaked. These confidentiality issues also raise extraordinarily important questions, such as:
• What was the purpose of this spreadsheet that had these 9,000 records on it?
• Given ACC’s history of inadvertently sending confidential information to the wrong people, why had ACC not developed robust data management procedures, such as data encryption or dis-aggregating names from other information?
• How did the information get sent to Ms Pullar?
• Isn’t that a really amazing coincidence that random chance saw this highly confidential and potentially damaging information being sent to Ms Pullar specifically?
• Why was the privacy breach, which occurred in August 2011, not detected until Ms Pullar told ACC about it in December 2011?
• Is it actually credible that the two senior managers who met with Ms Pullar in December then did not mention the privacy breach to more senior figures? (as a former senior public servant myself, I can tell you that this does not ring true at all: their strong instinct, and correct procedure, would be to report this risk up the chain of command. I would be very surprised if the CEO and Chair were not informed.)
• Why was no action taken to repair and manage the privacy breach once Ms Pullar did not return the information she had been sent? (according to ACC’s account that is.)
• If ACC senior managers (the same ones who apparently did not report it to their superiors) felt the organisation was being blackmailed in December, why did they wait until now to raise this with Police?
• Why was information about Sensitive Claimants routinely distributed to ACC managers who are not part of the Sensitive Claims Unit?
• Why were the staff, who called those whose privacy had been breached, often described by these claimants as not understanding the impact of the news, insensitive, and unresponsive, in an organisation for which privacy ought to be an absolutely central consideration?
So, some issues for the Privacy Commissioner to look at as well. I wrote to her last Wednesday asking her to investigate and I’m pleased she is going to do so. However, the scope of her inquiry will be limited to privacy issues. The Privacy Act will not empower her to investigate non-privacy matters like political interference, a fact which is apparently lost on the Prime Minister.
And there is another set of issues again. The reason Bronwyn Pullar and her support person Michelle Boag were meeting ACC in December was to discuss a list of more than 40 breaches by ACC of the law, its own rules and good process. The existence of such a list will hardly be a surprise to many ACC claimants. There are still many good people working in the ACC system, and the organisation itself is fundamentally sound, but it is changing for the worse and good people are being squeezed out. A culture of public service is being replaced by what I call a culture of disentitlement: claimants are seen as the enemy, and the the prime directive has become minimising expenditure rather than meeting needs. For well over a year I have been calling for an independent review of the reinterpretation ACC has conducted of its Act, which has seen large numbers of people denied cover because of assertions of “degeneration” or “pre-existing condition” and rapidly increasing numbers of ACC decisions being overturned by review or in the Courts.
Sounds like we need three inquiries.
An article from the Dominion Post by Tracy Watkins and Vernon Small
Shamed former Cabinet minister Nick Smith is calling for an inquiry to clear his name after falling on his sword over letters he wrote as a minister to help a close friend. An emotional Dr Smith resigned yesterday after Prime Minister John Key called him back to Wellington to explain the emergence of a second letter – raising questions over his support for National Party activist and ACC claimant Bronwyn Pullar. The second letter emerged as Mr Key was under mounting pressure to sack Dr Smith and order an inquiry. It revealed that two other MPs, backbencher Nikki Kaye and former Cabinet minister Pansy Wong, had also been asked to get involved in Ms Pullar's case. But they passed the matter on after declaring a conflict of interest – something Dr Smith failed to do when he signed ACC's formal response. The saga that led to Dr Smith's downfall began when The Dominion Post revealed last week that ACC had mistakenly sent thousands of clients' files to Ms Pullar. Senior National Party colleagues admitted they were "gutted" over Dr Smith's fall from grace, which leaves Mr Key with a big hole to fill in his Cabinet. But one source said Mr Key had "nowhere to go". "He saw that [second] letter this morning and thought `well, that's really crossed the line' ... it's been hard for all of us, to be honest." There are now questions over why Mr Key did not act sooner after he backtracked on his earlier view that Dr Smith had not broken any Cabinet rules on handling conflicts of interest – suggesting instead that while Dr Smith's actions were in breach of the Cabinet manual, it was only there for guidance. Dr Smith had not acted illegally but did show poor judgment, which created a "perception of a conflict of interest", he said. After abruptly cancelling his plans to attend a funeral in Nelson, Dr Smith boarded a flight to Wellington and penned his resignation letter en route, before telling Parliament he had made two errors of judgment over the letters relating to Ms Pullar's ACC claim while he was ACC minister. The first letter, on ministerial letterhead, explained Ms Pullar's state of health before the accident, prompting her compensation claim. The second letter emerged after a search of all Dr Smith's correspondence relating to Ms Pullar was ordered. "I do want to put on the public record that I did not, in my view, interfere in any way in the judgment calls that ACC made about that particular person's claim but I do accept that the signing of those two letters is not up to the standard that this Parliament can rightly expect of its ministers," Dr Smith told the House. He said there may still be an inquiry and he would welcome that. It would show that he received a tonne of emails from Ms Pullar and he did not respond to the vast bulk of those. "I effectively told my office this person is a friend and don't bother responding to her emails." But Mr Key said he did not see any need for an inquiry beyond one being conducted by police and the Privacy Commissioner over Ms Pullar, who blew the whistle on a mass privacy breach by ACC after it inadvertently emailed details about more than 6000 claimants to her. ACC has accused Ms Pullar of threatening to go public with the information unless it guaranteed her a benefit for two years – a version of events disputed by Ms Pullar and another close friend, former National Party president Michelle Boag. Dr Smith has faced questions over his relationship with Ms Pullar after NZ First leader Winston Peters used parliamentary privilege to label it a "shabby little case involving blackmail, sex [and] a minister with a conflict of interest". Dr Smith's senior colleagues are not ruling out a comeback to Cabinet and Mr Key left the door open yesterday, but Dr Smith said he would decide on his political future closer to the 2014 election. His departure will prompt a minor reshuffle, with Napier MP Chris Tremain tipped as the frontrunner to fill the vacant Cabinet slot. Ms Pullar would not comment yesterday.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST AT CENTRE OF SAGA Nick Smith's downfall originates from March 2010 when he failed to declare a conflict of interest when Bronwyn Pullar's ACC case crossed his desk. Maungakiekie MP Sam Lotu-Iiga wrote to then associate ACC minister Pansy Wong about Ms Pullar's ACC claim on behalf of Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye. Both Ms Kaye and Ms Wong declared a conflict of interest because they knew Ms Pullar personally. They had passed the matter on. ACC wrote a formal response to Mr Lotu-Iiga and Dr Smith signed it, without acknowledging his own relationship with Ms Pullar. "I am replying to your letter because Minister Wong has also declared a conflict of interest as she knows Ms Pullar personally," the letter said. It said ACC had accepted cover for some of Ms Pullar's injuries and acknowledged she had requested a review of the decision. In a letter written in December 2010, Dr Smith told Ms Pullar it was inappropriate and impossible for him to intervene in the matter on her behalf. "I found the tone of your letter pretty over the top with your claims of corruption and rotten to the core etcetera," he said. In March last year he wrote to Ms Pullar saying he had looked into concerns she raised about an ACC consent form. He reiterated that it would be inappropriate for him to interfere with her ACC case. "I do hope you are able to resolve these issues and move on with your life." The second contentious issue was the letter of recommendation Dr Smith wrote in July last year in support of Ms Pullar. "I can confirm, however, that in my contacts with Bronwyn prior to the accident she was well and a dynamic, capable person who worked hard and achieved a lot," he said. "I wish to put this on record to assist in any comparative assessment of Bronwyn's current health." All four letters were written on Dr Smith's ministerial letterhead.
HOW THE STORY UNFOLDED Tuesday, March 13: Dominion Post investigations editor Phil Kitchin reveals that private details of more than 9000 ACC claims – some featuring well-known people – have been emailed to a person who should not have received them. The privacy breach, described as one of the worst in New Zealand history, included personal information on nearly 250 clients from ACC's most secure unit, the sensitive claims unit. Wednesday, March 14: ACC says it will telephone or mail an apology to 6748 clients whose privacy had been breached and deal with compensation claims case by case. The corporation said a staff member sent a spreadsheet containing the names and nature of at least 9000 claims, including some by those who said they had been the victims of sexual abuse and other violent crime. Friday, March 16: The whistleblower who contacted The Dominion Post is referred to police over claims she threatened to go public about being mistakenly sent the confidential details, unless ACC promised to pay her a benefit for two years. In a report to ACC Minister Judith Collins, ACC said the woman tried to negotiate a guaranteed benefit payment: "She made threats that, if her demands were not met, she would not return the information and she would inform the media of the alleged privacy issue." Sunday, March 18: A Sunday newspaper names the whistleblower as Auckland businesswoman and former National Party activist Bronwyn Pullar. Monday, March 20: Ms Pullar said she had never made threats or demands about the return of information in her dealings with ACC. "I did not threaten ACC that I would inform the media of the alleged privacy issue, I did not threaten ACC to get my own way in any way." Tuesday, March 20: Environment Minister Nick Smith apologises to Prime Minister John Key after admitting he wrote a reference for Ms Pullar for her to use in her medical assessment for a claim lodged with ACC. The letter, written in July 2011 when Mr Smith was ACC minister, was written on ministerial letterhead.
An article from the New Zealand Herald by Amelia Romanos
Close to tears and voice shaking, National MP Nick Smith today announced his resignation from Cabinet in a statement to Parliament. Dr Smith had faced increasing pressure to resign after revelations this week that he intervened in his friend and National Party activist Bronwyn Pullar's ACC claim while he was ACC Minister last year. This afternoon he told Parliament he had tendered his resignation from his roles as Local Government, Environment and Climate Change Minister, and that Prime Minister John Key had accepted.
Dr Smith revealed that, in addition to the reference letter on ministerial letterhead for Ms Pullar, he had signed a second letter relating to her case in which he had not declared his conflict of interest. The second letter referred to was written in 2010, when another MP was advocating for Ms Pullar to Pansy Wong, the then-Associate Minister of ACC. "Pansy Wong, quite properly said that this was a friend of hers, she was on her campaign committee, and declared a conflict of interest, and referred that letter back to myself," Dr Smith told Parliament. "ACC prepared a formal response to that letter, I signed out that error back to that constituent without acknowledging that I too had a conflict of interest." While Dr Smith maintained that he had not tried to interfere in Ms Pullar's claim, he said his decision to resign was the "proper" one. "It was that second letter in which, having not erred once but erred twice, that has brought about my resignation," he said. "I do accept that the signing of those two letters is not up to the standard this Parliament can rightly expect of its ministers." Choked up with emotion, Dr Smith offered apologies to the Prime Minister, his caucus, his family and staff. "It is my intention to serve out this term of Parliament, I love this place," he said. "I'm disappointed I'm not going to be able to continue my work in some of those areas I have a passion, but I apologise to all my fellow representatives for those misjudgments." There has been speculation that Dr Smith had a sexual relationship with Ms Pullar, but he would not confirm that. Dr Smith told reporters he would not comment on his private life, "except to say that I have a wonderful wife and family". "I have been absolutely loyal to my wife, and I will be to the end of my days." Following Dr Smith's announcement, Mr Key said the reference letter his minister had written had been "close to the line", and the second letter had been a step too far. "It's not just once that he's shown poor judgement, it's twice, and on that basis, it's quite clear he should have made his conflict of interest also known, he shouldn't have had anything to do with the complainant, he should have delegated that responsibility as other ministers do," Mr Key said. Opposition parties have called for an independent inquiry into Dr Smith's actions, but Mr Key said he did not think one was necessary. "The Privacy Commissioner and the police are having their inquiries, and they'll carry on in the fullness of time. I haven't seen anything else that strikes me that I don't understand what has gone on in this particular instance," Mr Key said. Labour leader David Shearer criticised Mr Key's handling of the situation, saying he should have asked for Dr Smith's resignation yesterday, and that he was using the second letter as a smoke screen. "He had enough information and enough cause to sack Nick Smith yesterday but he failed to do so, this is not living up to his high standards," Mr Shearer said. "That first letter was a clear breach of Cabinet guidelines, Nick Smith was in fact advocating for a friend in his position as a minister and it was completely wrong." Mr Key said Gerry Brownlee, Craig Foss and Chris Finlayson would act in Dr Smith's local government, climate change issues and environment portfolios respectively, until a permanent appointment was made. Mr Key said it was possible that Dr Smith could be reinstated as a minister in the future, but there had been no deal made to bring him back. Dr Smith today revealed that, in addition to the reference letter on ministerial letterhead for Ms Pullar, he had signed a second letter relating to her case in which he had not declared his conflict of interest. The second letter was written in 2010, when another MP was advocating for Pullar to Pansy Wong, the then-Associate Minister of ACC. Dr Smith is the third minister in Mr Key's Government to lose their portfolios for misuse of their position or improper conduct. Internal Affairs Minister Richard Worth lost his job in 2009 following a sex scandal while Ethnic Affairs Minister Pansy Wong resigned after the Auditor General found she and her husband misused ministerial travel funding. A fourth minister, former Fisheries Minister Phil Heatley lost his portfolio in early 2010 for misusing his ministerial credit card but was later reinstated following an investigation by the Auditor General. Earlier today, Mr Key was backing Dr Smith, maintaining that Dr Smith's July 2011 letter on ministerial letterhead was lapse of judgement but not a serious matter. Mr Key was refusing to comment on speculation about the exact nature of Dr Smith and Ms Pullar's relationship but said he was satisfied with Dr Smith's account of events.
