Question to Minister

9. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for ACC: Is she satisfied that just 54 percent of the public expressed trust and confidence in ACC according to the corporation’s 2014 Annual Report?



Hon Nikki Kaye (Minister for ACC): No, I believe that ACC needs to do more to rebuild trust and confidence with New Zealanders. I am confident that ACC has a significant programme of work under way to achieve this. I am also pleased that the annual report shows trust and confidence has been trending upwards for the past few years.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Did former Minister Judith Collins damage public trust and confidence in ACC when she admitted that every New Zealander is paying too much for ACC because the Government is using excessive levies to create the perception that it will achieve a fiscal surplus in the current financial year?

Hon Nikki Kaye: Well, firstly, I disagree with the statement made in that question. But what I can say in terms of levies is that under our Government we have announced $480 million in levy reductions. That is incredibly significant, and it is a bit rich to get a lecture after the previous Labour Government left us with a huge deficit in 2008-09 of $4.8 billion.

Iain Lees-Galloway: I am going to seek leave to table a media statement, but that is because the Minister refuted the premise of my question—

Mr Speaker: Order! Members need to understand that the purpose of tabling a document is not to make a political point.

Iain Lees-Galloway: The purpose is not to make a political point.

Mr Speaker: Well, I think that in the way it has been described to me, it is very much about making a political point. The reason people seek leave to table documents is that it is information that is not readily available to members, may be difficult to source for members, and may be informative to members. If it is something that has been in the media, particularly media that is freely available to members, I do not intend to start putting the leave.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In a ruling that you made—it was either earlier this week or last week—you referred us to a Speaker’s ruling that requires any statements made in a question to be authenticated, so if there is any factual material in a question, it needs to be authenticated. If a member is not able to table a document to authenticate that claim, what is the appropriate way for them to authenticate any claim that they might be making in a question?

Mr Speaker: The member, I think, is confused between a primary question and a supplementary question. The authentication is required for a primary question, and that is required in the process when it is lodged to the Clerk’s Office, and they will be accepted with authentication. With regard to supplementary questions, I have to judge relatively immediately whether it is a reasonable question, and I do that, but it is not as if there is an ability to then table information that substantiates the authentication of a supplementary question. So in this case, the primary question was authenticated, it was immediately answered in the very first word by the Minister, and we have now moved to a supplementary question. The way forward, as I continue to advise the House, is further incisive supplementary questions.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Does the Minister accept—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: World weary—he’s not happy. That’s a big sigh.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Are you all right? Does the Minister accept that over the 6 years that National has been in Government, New Zealanders have overwhelmingly come to perceive ACC as difficult to deal with, likely to breach their privacy, likely to litigate against claimants, and overcharging them for the privilege; if not, why not?

Hon Nikki Kaye: No, I do not accept all of the statements made by that member. What I can say is what I have said in answer to the primary question: there is more work to do. Obviously, by a percentage that shows 54 percent public confidence, we have to do better. Let me outline some of the progress that we have made. Firstly, you can see at an investment level that ACC is now essentially fully funded. That is an extraordinary achievement for this Government, given that we were left in a situation of a debt of $4.8 billion in terms of deficit. Secondly, at an organisational level it is very clear—and I am meeting with the board tomorrow—that it has a huge programme around both updating information and communication technology systems to ensure that we have better progress around issues like privacy but also that a huge amount is being done in terms of claims management. I am confident that ACC is on the right track.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Will this morning’s article in the New Zealand Herald damage public trust and confidence in ACC, given that it detailed an attempt to cover up information about fraudulent activity, that the cover-up itself was bungled, that when pressed about the extent of fraud, ACC could only say that the information it used was not robust, and that an accurate figure for the level of fraud has not been provided?

Hon Nikki Kaye: In terms of the article in the New Zealand Herald, I do not believe that it will actually damage public trust, because you need to understand that the data is—and I want to outline why, for a number of reasons—11-year-old data. The data was from 2,000 clients, and that is out of a total of about a billion claims. So, firstly, it was a very small sample. I also understand that the figure that was quoted of 8 percent to 10 percent was not the proportion that was fraudulent; it was the proportion that needed another look. So it is old data, it is a small sample, and it is ropey.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Given that the Minister is not satisfied with the level of public trust and confidence in ACC, does she believe that the two initiatives to address public trust and confidence listed in the service agreements between ACC and former Minister Collins, which are “refresh our communications strategy” and “social media”, will be enough to improve confidence in ACC, or does she think it might take something a little bit less superficial than that?

Hon Nikki Kaye: In terms of the corporation’s programme to improve public confidence, there is a range of initiatives. There is a range of initiatives. The member is referring to a different document. He is not referring to the annual report. If he reads the annual report, he will see that not only is there a significant investment plan in terms of dealing with the privacy issues, and not only is the ACC doing a huge amount around sensitive claims, which is very important, but, thirdly, the Government is looking at the long-term funding policy. When he drills down, when he does the work and reads the annual report, he will see that one of the areas where we do need to improve public confidence is around businesses’ interaction with the ACC. There is a huge amount to do in terms of that administration side because that is where the public confidence is partly very low.

Marama Fox:

    [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

    [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Hon Nikki Kaye: Just in terms of the translation of that question, I got only half of it, I think—

Mr Speaker: I invite Marama Fox to either repeat it in Te Reo, or, if she wants to, she can now repeat the question in English—whichever she would rather do.

Marama Fox: Perhaps I will repeat it in English. How is the Minister planning to address the projected 10 percent increase in new sensitive claims each year, and what plans does she have in place to involve whānau in the recovery process?

Hon Nikki Kaye: That is a very good question. Firstly, one area where the Government is very focused, and also the corporation is very focused, is the prevention of sexual violence. We have a strategy and an action plan around that, and they involve a number of Government agencies. The second thing I would say is I am advised that ACC is currently in the final stages of tendering for new suppliers and providers around some of those sensitive claims. That is very important so that we have more providers. Thirdly, with regard to family and whānau support, I am pleased to confirm that family and whānau of sensitive claims clients will receive support through the introduction of up to 20 hours of family and whanau support, depending on family need. I can confirm that this will be available by the end of the year.

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Can I just ask the Minister with respect to the question, because I was not listening to the translation, for further information, just in case other members, Māori members, use Te Reo and we have to switch into English, which defeats the purpose. Was the issue that the Minister did not get a good translation, that the Minister did not get a translation, or that the translation was unclear—just for the purposes of—

Mr Speaker: I am sure I can answer that on behalf of the Minister. The Minister did not manage to realise it was going to be in Māori. She did not grab the headpiece in time to listen to the translation, so she picked up the latter part of the—[Interruption] I will let the Minister explain her own reasoning.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: No, I am going to hear from the Hon Nikki Kaye first so we will get an explanation.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I was listening, and I heard only half, I think, of what the translation was, and other members may be able to confirm that.

Chris Hipkins: I am happy to speak to this, because I also was listening to the translation, and the translation bore very little correlation to the question that was then asked in English. This is quite a serious issue for the House, because we previously had a situation where questions were asked first in Te Reo Māori and then in English, and we moved to a system where we had simultaneous translation. If that translation is not going to actually translate what is asked, then we are going to have to reassess that. I listened very carefully to the translation. I can fully understand why the Minister did not understand what the question was. I did not understand what the question was either.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. I appreciate that. When I finally got my headpiece on, again, I found much the same as the member Chris Hipkins has said. We need to now investigate whether it was an issue to do with the translation, because it is critical, if we are going to rely on the translator, that we have an accurate interpretation of the question that is asked. Otherwise, it could lead to all sorts of difficulties for a Minister. I will look into the matter.

Question to Minister

7. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by her statement “we need to encourage these women and children to be comfortable coming forward to report domestic and sexual violence”; if so, what has she done to encourage women to report domestic violence?



Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) :Yes; the Government has already achieved significant progress with improving the support for victims of domestic and sexual violence. As a result of the $50 offender levy, $12.6 million has been collected since July 2010. There are 15 new grants and services available to victims, including discretionary grants to support victims of sexual violence and funding for the national Sexual Violence Survivor Advocate, as well as specialist victim advisers to provide assistance for parents or caregivers who attend court to support child witnesses. As Minister of Justice I have initiated a major work stream, which is nearing completion and which will include a range of further initiatives to provide better support and access to justice for victims of domestic and sexual violence.
Jan Logie: Will women feel encouraged to report domestic violence when they see her, the Minister of Justice, defending Maurice Williamson’s interference—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That question now has no connection with the primary question. I invite the member—I do not want to take supplementary questions away from her. I invite her to ask a question that is in relation to the primary question.
Hon Members: Point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Well, I cannot take three at once. I will not take any; they have all sat down.
Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My initial question was relating to encouraging women to report. My second question was whether women will feel encouraged to report, based on the leadership provided by that Minister. It was directly relevant.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member simply asks that question, it will be in order, but when it is a reference to a resignation that has occurred, etc., that is not in order. So if the member wants to stand and ask the question that she has just raised in the point of order, it may well be acceptable.
Jan Logie: Will women feel encouraged to report domestic violence when they see her, the Minister of Justice, providing leadership in domestic violence, supporting a Minister’s interference in a police case?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I gave the member one more chance. She was on the right track until the last part. I will give her only one—[Interruption] Order! I will give her one more opportunity. Otherwise, we will move to the next question.
Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask you to reflect on that ruling you have just made. The question from Jan Logie was a broad statement around domestic and sexual violence. She has asked a question of the Minister. I cannot understand why her referencing a matter that is in the public arena rules the question out of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Well, the member might not understand it, but I invite the member to look very carefully at the Standing Orders—
Grant Robertson: Which one?
Mr SPEAKER: Well, 384, if the member needs it, and I invite him to read it if he wants to. Supplementary questions are at the discretion of the Speaker. I have been very patient with the member. I will give the member her last opportunity. Otherwise, we are moving to the next question.
Jan Logie: Will women feel encouraged to report domestic violence when they see her, the Minister of Justice, providing public defence in relation to a high-profile case of domestic violence?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of course I have not done that. What I have done is to say that the Prime Minister was quite right to receive the resignation of my colleague Mr Williamson in the circumstances. I have also, at the same time—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the Minister.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: On three occasions you found that the original question was erroneous or outside of the Standing Orders because of a reference to a certain case. Now you find that the Minister of Justice is quite within the borders of the Standing Orders, having referred to the case that you ruled out from being referred to in the first place. Can we have some consistency here, please.
Mr SPEAKER: I would have thought the Minister’s answer was helpful to the House, but if the member is objecting to the answer, then I will curtail the answer and we will move on. Are there further supplementary questions?
Jan Logie: If tackling domestic violence is a priority, why has the Ministry of Justice funding for family and domestic violence services dropped under her Government from $8.7 million in 2010 to $7.3 million in 2013, despite an increase in family violence arrests last year?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: These days we take much more of a cross-Government approach to the funding of domestic violence and sexual violence. In fact, I can tell the member that the Ministry of Social Development is also contributing to the funding. Also, in addition to that, another portfolio, accident compensation, has spent—I think it is, from memory—around $40 million a year on sensitive claims resulting from sexual violence.
Jan Logie: I seek leave to table a report compiled by the library showing a decrease in funding from the Government, from the Ministry of Social Development, as well as the Ministry of Justice, as well as the It’s Not OK campaign—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It has been well described. On the basis that it is not freely available to members, I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table this library report on a funding trend. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.

    Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Jan Logie: How can women feel comfortable reporting domestic violence when Ministers have slashed funding for family violence and used their power to help a man charged with abuse simply—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again, we are right back in the same position we were earlier. I will invite the member—[Interruption] Order! I will invite the member to re-ask her question. I suggest that if she just keeps it to the first part, it will be in order.
Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Justice herself introduced the Mr Williamson case. That is what the Minister did. It is now on the record. We now have a right to respond—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! A member sitting not too far from the member took objection to the Minister raising that. On that basis, I curtailed the answer. [Interruption] Order! We can move on very quickly. I have been exceedingly patient with the member. I will ask her, if she wants to ask further supplementary questions, that she does it according to the Standing Orders.
Jan Logie: How can women feel comfortable reporting domestic violence when Ministers have slashed funding for support, prevention, and treatment services, and lost their way in terms of providing political leadership on the importance of a consistent response to domestic violence?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I reject the allegation in the second part of that member’s question. I can say to that member that this Government is deeply committed to bringing an end to domestic and sexual violence. In fact, that member well knows and many people in this House will well know that there are people in this House whose close family members have been killed as a result of domestic violence.

http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/business/qoa/50HansQ_20140506_00000007/7-domestic-violence%E2%80%94support-for-victims

Question to Minister

10. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister for ACC: Have all of the recommendations of the 2012 Independent Review of ACC’s Privacy and Security of Information been implemented; if not, why not?



Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): ACC advised that it has implemented 37 of the 44 recommendations. A number have ongoing activity associated with them. Of the remaining seven, two are under active management, which relate to information governance and the implementation of data loss protection software. The other five involve a fundamental review of ACC’s end-to-end claims process activity. Accordingly, ACC advised that it has taken a deliberate decision to complete the end-to-end process review of claims management as part of its work around improving trust and confidence. This is to ensure all processes and information technology changes required under these five recommendations comprehensively meet the intent of the report.
Kevin Hague: Is she confident that the recommendations to ensure that consent forms follow the law and are best practice have been properly implemented, given that the court has just found that the way that ACC was using its ACC167 form was actually illegal?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not want to argue with the member, but, strictly speaking, the form was not held to be illegal, but the way in which it was used was outside of the statutory requirements. I agree with the member that the form must be changed to comply with the latest decision. I have also been advised by ACC that this form has in the past been approved by the Privacy Commissioner, by the Human Rights Commission, and, I have been told, by six different District Court decisions. So the fact that this latest decision has said that it has been wrongly used is something that ACC is taking very seriously, as am I.
Kevin Hague: How does she reconcile ACC’s illegal use of this form with the privacy review’s findings that stakeholders’ single-biggest concern was the attitude and culture of the organisation in dealing with their personal information, and the report’s finding that a consistent theme was that information not relevant to the claim was held on file?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I also recall that the review said that the form itself was able to be used. So I think the problem is that the past decisions of the courts and of other agencies, like the Human Rights Commission, the Privacy Commissioner, and also the review, have not actually said that the form has been misused. But I believe that the member is right that the form should be changed. ACC told me on Monday this week that it was not going to appeal the decision and that it would abide by it. I think that is the right outcome.
Kevin Hague: How do revelations today that ACC has been handing people’s full ACC files—including information on sensitive claims—over to prospective employers stack up against the recommendations of the privacy review?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am sorry, I have not heard that claim, but if the member would like to provide me with the information, I will be happy to take some action. I seek leave to assist the member with the summary—
Mr SPEAKER: You are seeking leave to table a document?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is a document that is the independent review recommendations and summary of actions as at 24 January this year, and I think that might help the member.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that summary of actions. Is there any objection to that being tabled? It can be tabled.
    Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Kevin Hague: How does the Minister reconcile the responsibility she took as Minister in 2012 and her comment that “I’m not going to sit back and let one of the most important Government entities we have let people down time and time again around things such as privacy. They have to act in the way that I expect them to act.” with her comments over the past several days that the implications of the court decision are an operational matter?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, strictly speaking, forms are an operational matter, but if the member is going to come to see the progress that has been made and what actions I have taken, I think that I have been very strong on this issue relating to ACC. I can look at the proof of just how successful that has been. In August 2012 there were 80 privacy breaches from ACC. A year later, in August 2013, that was down to 28. In March 2014—the month just past—it was down to 19. There are significant improvements in the ability of ACC to protect people’s privacy, and at the same time, to comply with its obligations under its own Act.

http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/business/qoa/50HansQ_20140416_00000010/10-accident-compensation-corporation%E2%80%94privacy-and-security

Question to Minister

Question 3: Katrina Shanks (National) to the Minister of Justice: What steps is the Government taking to support victims of sexual violence?



Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): The Government is committed to providing better support for victims of crime, including all victims of sexual violence. As a result of the Law Commission’s recent review of the Evidence Act, I will shortly be introducing proposals to improve the way some evidence is dealt with in these cases. If the defence wants to raise issues about a complainant’s previous sexual history, they will need to give notice before trial. In addition, child witnesses under the age of 18 will be able to give evidence by video recording, which can be challenged in trial. They will be able to have a support person sitting nearby when they give evidence. There is a range of support services for sexual violence victims across the Government. They include specialist victim support, no real limitation period on the making of a complaint, automatic name suppression in criminal proceedings, and the court is closed when victims give evidence. Victims can give evidence behind a screen, and they are allowed a support person with them in court while giving evidence, and there is a range of counselling and financial support through the Ministry of Justice, ACC support, or the Ministry of Social Development, including funding of agencies such as Doctors for Sexual Abuse Care, Auckland Sexual Abuse Helpline, and Wellington Rape Crisis. The Victims of Crime Reform Bill, which is awaiting its second reading, will also introduce a new victims’ code.
Katrina Shanks: What criminal processes exist to deal with sexual violence offences?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: In New Zealand we have a common law justice system based on democratic principles of fairness. Some European and former communist countries have a different system, the inquisitorial method of criminal justice, which effectively means that any accused person has to prove their innocence. Accused persons are examined directly by judges trained in the inquisitorial method of examination. There is limited ability to challenge evidence presented to the judge. In the common law method, prosecution and defence each present their evidence and arguments to the court, and have the right to challenge each other’s evidence. In 2012 the Law Commission published an issues paper and invited submissions on a range of pre-trial and trial processes, particularly to consider whether inquisitorial processes could be incorporated into our justice system for sexual offences. Some of the issues considered have been advanced, such as child protection orders, greater use of restorative justice to deal with sexual violence offences, protection for child witnesses, and requiring notice to be given if the defence intends to raise evidence of the complainant’s prior sexual history.
Katrina Shanks: What else is the Government doing to help prevent sexual violence victimisation?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Prevention is obviously the key for progress in this matter. Sexual violence is obviously abhorrent but it is also linked with alcohol and other drugs. The Government’s alcohol reform legislation comes into force on 18 December. From 18 December this year it will be an offence to supply alcohol to a minor without parental consent. In addition, the Government has passed the Psychoactive Substances Act to stop the sale of harmful party pills. The Ministry of Health funds a rape prevention programme in schools called BodySafe, which is currently run in many schools and teaches young people how to keep themselves safe from sexual violence and how to deal with a sexual attachment if it does happen. Earlier this year, Minister Bennett announced a major funding boost for victims of sexual violence through agencies such as the Auckland Sexual Abuse Help Foundation. In addition, ACC is redesigning its support, assessment, and treatment services for sensitive claims to provide more responsive services to victims of sexual violence. Sadly, many victims of sexual violence are repeat victims, and part of the approach is to help victims keep safe to prevent re-victimisation. There is a good deal currently being done to deal with sexual violence in this community, and it is a real problem that affects old and young. We need to continue to bring offenders to justice and to acknowledge that sexual violence is a crime and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/business/qoa/50HansQ_20131112_00000003/3-crime-victims-sexual-offences%E2%80%94support

Question to Minister

Question 4: Kevin Hague to the Minister for ACC: Does she agree with Peter Trapski's recommendation in his 1994 Report of that "the Corporation must ensure that the opinions it obtains from medical practitioners are independent, not only of the claimant, but also of the Corporation, and that they are seen to be so"?



Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): Yes.
Kevin Hague: Is she concerned that just four of ACC’s favourite specialist medical advisers— Dr Martin C Robb, Dr Vic du Plessis, Dr Bill Turner, and Dr David Beaumont—are collectively paid up to $2 million a year from ACC for services rendered?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I believe that the member is referring to a TV3 report on Sunday evening—oh, no, he is not. When it comes to saying that people are paid up to an amount, it is not particularly helpful, because it is anything under that amount. But I have been advised by ACC that for medical case reviews, it has 338 doctors who can carry out those assessments, for initial medical assessments the number is 97, for vocational initial medical assessments it is 62, and for impairment assessments it has got 59, and that, on average, the four particular doctors who were discussed on the 60 Minutes programme, whom I thought he was referring to, actually conduct between 8.7 and 4.7 percent of those particular reviews. So I hope that is helpful to the member.
Kevin Hague: Does she believe that an ordinary person would consider it possible that medical advisers like Dr du Plessis, Dr Turner, Dr Beaumont, and Dr Robb could remain independent of ACC, when it pays them between $300,000 and $500,000 each per year?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think that that is an issue that needs to be considered, and I have spoken to ACC about it. The member will be aware that there is a new board now put in place. I will be meeting with the board and discussing—obviously not the individual cases or the matters— how we can end up with a system that, obviously, achieves good, robust, and independent medical reports and assessments, and that can be seen as independent by both the claimants or clients of ACC and ACC. I also note that even back in the year 2000—12 years ago—the same lawyers for ACC clients were claiming exactly the same issues around what they said were non-independent medical assessments. So I do not think much has changed, but I am happy to work with the member to try to get things to change.
Kevin Hague: Does she agree that an ordinary person would find it unbelievable that ACC would continue to fly these doctors around the country and pay them an average of almost $1,700 for each client they see if they were not acting as “hit men”, to use the phrase that Laurie Gluckman was described as according to Judge Trapski, in targeting the exit of long-term claimants, which ACC has referred to as low-hanging fruit?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think it is absolutely right that people who are not highly trained skilled medical professionals, just like people who are not highly trained, very skilled legal professionals, find the fees that are charged outrageous, but that is actually something that I think most people in New Zealand would say around this area. I do not know for certain and I cannot tell the House that the medical professionals he is referring to are paid any differently from any other medical professionals—
Hon Ruth Dyson: So that makes it all right.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —with that degree of expertise, and I am surprised that the former Minister for ACC, who left the job so abruptly, should want to call out about this issue.
Kevin Hague: Does she accept that there is a risk that the assessments performed by a doctor who earns up to half a million dollars a year working part-time for ACC could be affected by that doctor’s desire to continue receiving such lucrative contracts from the corporation?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I think that there is always that perception. Whether the perception is reality is a different matter, because as I understand it, these very highly trained, experienced medical professionals are in great demand all over the world. What we do know is that in a country the size of New Zealand, which, of course, has a fabulous health system, thanks in good part to this Government, it is thanks also to the level of qualifications and experience and the work attitude of many of the medical professionals he is referring to.
Kevin Hague: Does she agree that contracting for specialist medical assessments with district health boards or professional colleges would help ensure that they are independent and are seen to be so, as Judge Trapski says they must be?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think the member has raised a very good point, and he has privately raised that matter with me. It is certainly one that I have raised with ACC, and now that the new board is in place I wish to take that matter further and see whether or not that is a realistic situation that we should consider.
Kevin Hague: What are the instructions she has given the reconstituted ACC board about specialist medical assessments?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have not yet met with the board. It has only been in place a few days, but I will be attending the first board meeting to discuss some of these issues with the board members and ask them whether they can start considering these matters. I have, however, met with the chief executive, raised those issues, and asked for some suggestions. I think it is a very important issue that the member has raised.
Barbara Stewart: Will ACC cap the annual amount it spends on any individual medical assessor to avoid the risk of incentivising advisers to provide reports that ACC wants rather than independent advice?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am not sure that that would be a good idea, particularly if, for instance, there may be only two or three specialists with the level of expertise in the country. So I think that might be a bit of a blunt instrument, but I can undertake to look at all those considerations.

http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/15035

Question to Minister

4. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for ACC: What are the findings of reports released today by the Privacy Commissioner and the Auditor-General about a privacy breach and governance at ACC?



Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): The independent report released by the Privacy Commissioner focused on ACC’s culture, policies, and practices around privacy and security of information. It found that these were not up to 21st century standards. The Auditor-General focused on governance of the corporation, and found that senior board members involved and management failed to recognise the systems of systemic failure around privacy and security information, and did not take the appropriate steps. I agree with all the findings.
David Bennett: What specific concerns did the independent report and the Auditor-General raise, and what is ACC doing to address these?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The independent report released by the Privacy Commissioner noted systemic weaknesses, including a variable culture around the importance of handling private information carefully and a lack of accountability for addressing privacy issues. ACC will undertake a significant programme of work to address concerns raised by both the independent report and the Auditor-General. A timetable for this programme of work is included in the report from the Privacy Commissioner, and I expect ACC to make the required changes as a priority.
Andrew Little: In view of the findings in today’s reports, both released at 2 p.m., that ACC board members, which her Government appointed, were too inexperienced to appreciate the gravity of Bronwyn Pullar’s complaints, and that the corporation took a cavalier attitude to protecting claimant privacy, what steps is she taking to fill the multiple board and senior management vacancies with people who understand ACC and the importance of utmost public confidence in it?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The question is not quite correct in one of the assumptions. I will deal with that first and then deal with the substance of the question. In fact, the board members who were named in the reports as having not appreciated the seriousness of the situation were its longest-serving board members—the chair and deputy chair. In relation to the filling of the board positions, I can tell the member that there is a very thorough process that is ongoing. Interviews are being undertaken and I am putting a great deal of thought into making sure we get the right combination of board members with the right skills, the right character, and the right experience.
David Bennett: What expectations has she set for ACC to improve public trust and confidence in how it operates?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Earlier this year I signed a letter of expectations and a service and purchase agreement with ACC outlining my priorities for the board. I expect the ACC board to improve public trust and confidence, improve the management and security of private information, maintain a focus on levy stability and financial sustainability, ensure early resolution of disputes, and provide high-quality service for clients. The Auditor-General noted that “this approach will lead to a more balanced and comprehensive approach to the governance and operation of ACC.”
Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of the Privacy Commissioner’s comment that the ACC culture change has to start at the top, what action has she taken to plug the leaks from her office?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There are no leaks from my office, as that member well knows.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1208/S00350/questions-and-answers-august-23.htm

Question to the Prime Minister

5. Dr Russel Norman (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he agree with the statement made by the Hon Bill English, in relation to the release of Natasha Fuller’s private details by his Social Development Minister, that, “People who enter into public debate are welcome to do so … and should provide their full information to the public”?



Hon Gerry Brownlee (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.
Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister agree with the director of the Office of Human Rights Proceedings that Paula Bennett breached the Privacy Act when she released Natasha Fuller’s private details without her permission?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: In fact, there has not been a finding that the Minister Paula Bennett breached the complainant’s privacy.
Dr Russel Norman: Does that mean that he supports Paula Bennett’s decision to reserve the right to release other people’s private details without their consent in the future “depending on the circumstances”, and is this now Government policy?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: No.
Dr Russel Norman: Will the Prime Minister direct other Ministers to follow the Privacy Act and not release private information without the consent of the people concerned?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Ministers do, every day, follow the provisions of the Privacy Act and many others as well.
Dr Russel Norman: When Taleni Lafo entered the public debate about the state of Housing New Zealand Corporation homes, claiming hers was making her children sick, under what circumstances would he consider it appropriate for Ministers responsible for the Inland Revenue Department, social development, or housing to access her personal details about herself and her family and make them public?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: The first expectation would be that the Minister investigated the circumstances and remedied the problem.
Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked about the circumstances under which it would be appropriate to release the information. The Minister talked about what they should do in the first instance. He did not address the question at all.
Mr Speaker: I think the member has got a reasonable point there. I invite him to repeat his question.
Dr Russel Norman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When Taleni Lafo entered the public debate about the state of Housing New Zealand Corporation homes, under what circumstances would the Prime Minister consider it appropriate for Ministers to access her personal details and those of her family, and make these details public?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: That is a hypothetical question, and I am not answering a hypothetical question.
Dr Russel Norman: When sexual abuse survivors criticise Government plans to cut back ACC for sensitive claims, under what circumstances would the Prime Minister support the Minister for ACC accessing the survivors’ personal files, and releasing their private, personal details to the media?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: This is once again a highly hypothetical question. The member can go on all afternoon trying to put forward these alarming situations in a hypothetical sense. They cannot and will not be answered.
Dr Russel Norman: Are there any circumstances in which it is acceptable for a Minister of the Crown to go to the Government files and access the personal, private details of a member of the public, and release those details without consent in order to make political gain?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I have to say, once again, he is asking for the answer to a question that poses hypothetical situations. What I can say is that when it comes to people like Stewart Murray Wilson, the public expect those details to be in the domain. Therefore, it is a very difficult question to answer specifically.
Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked for, basically, a policy guideline. What is the Prime Minister’s policy for guiding Ministers on releasing this information?
Mr Speaker: The member actually asked, if I recollect correctly, whether there are any circumstances under which such information might be accessed and released. In answering it, it appeared the Minister indicated that perhaps there might be some, depending on the circumstances. That seemed to be the answer the Minister gave, because he seemed to cite a situation where that might be a desirable thing to do. It is totally the Minister’s right to answer how he sees fit, but it was certainly an answer. He indicated that there may be some circumstances.
Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister accept that having a Government that releases the private information of people who oppose Government policy—information that is available only to the State—is an approach that silences dissent, chills dissent in a democratic society, and is not acceptable in a democratic and free country?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, quite clearly by the long list of examples the member has given this afternoon, that is not the case.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1208/S00247/questions-and-answers-august-16.htm

Question to the Prime Minister

12. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported comments regarding ACC that he “backed the corporation’s harder stance, saying it should continue and there was no evidence legitimate claimants were missing out”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I think the member might find that that was poetic licence taken by the *New Zealand Herald. I stand by my actual statement in response to a question, which asked whether I had any concerns that ACC is prioritising its bottom line over entitlements for claimants, to which I responded that I had not seen any real evidence of that. I also said that what has got to be carefully monitored is that we are not throwing people off the tail, or their support from ACC, if it is neither legally correct nor fair.
Kevin Hague: How can he be sure that legitimate claimants are not missing out when almost half of those long-term claimants who have appealed ACC’s decision to exit them in 2012 are found by *Dispute Resolution Services to have been wrongly kicked off?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There can and will be isolated cases where someone has not been treated fairly, and that is against what I think is appropriate, which is why I said on Monday that it had to be legal and fair. I would point also to the advice that I have in relation to *Dispute Resolution Services that over the past 6 years the average percentage of disputed decisions found in the corporation’s favour is 71.8 percent.
Kevin Hague: How can he be sure that legitimate claimants are not missing out when, of those decisions of ACC upheld by Dispute Resolution Services that are subsequently appealed at the District Court, around half of those are overturned?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said earlier, I cannot be sure in every case, which is why I said earlier in the week that it is very important that the corporation deals with people in a way that is both
legally correct and fair. It is also important that people have an avenue to test their rights, if they believe they have not been fairly treated, and people do. The Government separated Dispute Resolution Services from ACC, to emphasise its independence. As I said in answer to the last question, in terms of disputed decisions, 71.8 percent are found in the corporation’s favour.
Kevin Hague: Is he aware that a core competency required in ACC case manager job descriptions is that case managers “can decide and act without having the total picture”, and does he agree that the full picture is needed if the numbers of cases overturned on appeal are to be reduced?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No; that is an operational matter that should be put to the chief executive, or at the very least the *Minister for ACC.
Kevin Hague: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the average over 6 years of decisions by ACC that have been upheld under review in fact masks a trend whereby, in the last 3 years, those decisions have been below the 70 percent target that the Government has set, whereas in the preceding 3 years they were above it?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. What I can say, as I said in response to earlier questions, is that over the past 6 years the average percentage of disputed decisions that are found in the corporation’s favour is 71.8 percent. The average percentage of elective surgery decisions found in the corporation’s favour is 64.6 percent. In the year to date the percentage of elective surgical decisions found in the corporation’s favour is higher than the rate under a Labour Government. But can I make this one point, and that is that the corporation deals, to the best of my knowledge, with about 1.5 million claimants a year. There are some very technical and difficult cases for everybody in amongst that. But for the most part we should be congratulating the corporation, because I think that for the most part it does a good job for New Zealanders.
Kevin Hague: What action, if any at all, has the Government taken to improve the quality of ACC’s decisions, given the increasing number of decisions that are being taken to review, and ACC’s repeated failure over the past 3 years to meet its contracted target of having at least 70 percent of its decisions about long-term claimants upheld at review?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said earlier, Dispute Resolution Services was made independent from the corporation to help in that regard. In terms of the success rate in favour of the corporation, it is very high, as I have been saying. There will always be individual cases, but for the member to make the case that, because a few cases go against the corporation, everything is broken there, is just simply incorrect.
Kevin Hague: I seek leave to table an ACC document. It is the job description for a case manager in claims management.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1206/S00419/questions-and-answers-june-27.htm

Question to Minister

3. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister for ACC: Can she confirm that staff in ACC’s Recovery Independence Service teams receive more or less remuneration dependent on whether the proportion of people receiving weekly compensation is less or more than specified duration targets?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) : I have today been advised that within the performance framework for the Recover Independence Service team, there is a component related to net entries to the long-term claim pool. I have also been advised that the component related to that number was approximately 15 percent of how a case-managed performance is measured. If a case manager performs well against the other 85 percent of their targets, they may still be entitled to a performance-based pay increase.
Kevin Hague: What is the clinical basis for these targets, if any at all?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not think I can answer that, because it is very much an operational issue, but I can say that ACC has advised me that it uses specialist, independent vocational rehabilitation services and clinicians to help people return to their pre-injury occupation wherever possible.
Kevin Hague: Does the Minister accept that having a financial incentive to terminate claimants’ compensation is likely to make case managers more inclined to terminate compensation for more claimants?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: If the member wants to put it like that, I can understand why he would be concerned. But we can look at it another way, which is a financial incentive to help people get back to independence and get back to work. I would say that was probably a good thing.
Kevin Hague: What safeguards, if any at all, are there to ensure that staff financial incentives do not lead to clinically inappropriate decisions to terminate compensation?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am advised that ACC uses the specialist, independent vocational rehabilitation services and clinicians, and that these people are independent, and that that is quite different from the case managers.
Kevin Hague: Is she aware that the rates of successful challenges of ACC decisions continue to rise in both the decision review process and in the District Court, and does she agree that that is indicative of something badly wrong in ACC decision-making?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think what it does indicate is that Dispute Resolution Services is clearly quite independent of ACC, as is, obviously, the District Court. There may well be instances—as in ACC previously—where they believe that there are too many decisions being reversed on the basis that someone is clearly making the wrong decisions, the wrong call. That tells me that these are made by independent clinicians. Actually, I think it would be a bad thing if every dispute that was sent to, for instance, Dispute Resolution Services for ACC was upheld. That would tell me that the service was either not independent or that nobody was actually checking to see whether or not people can work.
Kevin Hague: What other ACC staff or contractors have financial incentives to deny claims or reduce compensation or rehabilitation services to ACC claimants?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not have that information.
Kevin Hague: Has she now received enough information about ACC’s disastrous claims management processes to ask the Auditor-General to bring forward her investigation of ACC’s claims management processes?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have not actually received enough information to do that. I am aware that the Auditor-General is undertaking her review, and I am prepared to wait for that review.
Kevin Hague: I seek leave to table a document. It is a document from ACC in response to an Official Information Act request from a member of the public. It sets out the key performance indicators for staff in the Recover Independence Service teams.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Andrew Little: What incentives are there under the ACC performance framework for Recover Independence Service staff to ensure that ACC meets its statutory obligations in relation to treatment, compensation, and rehabilitation?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have been advised by ACC that the performance framework relates to 10 percent of performance against organisational goals, which clearly would include what that member has just asked; 10 percent against team goals, again; 30 percent against organisational values, which are clearly those matters he has raised; and 50 percent against personal goals. The 50 percent of personal goals includes 25 percent case-management quality, 10 percent customer service, and 15 percent net entries to the long-term claim pool.
Andrew Little: How effective is the new regime for vocational rehabilitation, which is intended to assist some claimants to return to work, or to recover their independence, given that there is a new layer of administration to pay for, called lead providers, and front-line service providers are complaining of being paid less and spending less time with claimants?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am sorry, could the member repeat his question? I did not catch all of it.
Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member, please, to do that.
Andrew Little: How effective is the new regime for vocational rehabilitation, which is intended to assist some claimants to return to work—namely, to recover their independence—given that there is a new layer of administration to pay for, called lead providers, and front-line service providers are complaining of being paid less and spending less time with claimants?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have been advised by ACC, when I have been around visiting its offices, that what has been necessary is to actually bring in lead providers to maintain the quality of assistance that is given in terms of the claimants, because before they had a large number of providers, and very little ability to supervise the quality. So it has been, I think, cut down to about six lead providers, and that seems to be working quite well.

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/4/3/4/50HansQ_20120621_00000003-3-Accident-Compensation-Recover-Independence.htm

Questions to Minister

10. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister for ACC: Will she return ACC to the pay-as-you-go funding model, outlined in the Green Party’s ACC Rehabilitation Plan and emailed to her this morning, and are there any points in the plan she will not consider implementing?



Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) : I have not yet considered the member’s ideas, but whatever outcome we arrive at regarding funding will need to be affordable and responsible, although no formal decision has yet been made on any changes to ACC’s funding model. This Government does not want to burden future generations of New Zealanders with the cost of injuries that occur today as well as the cost of their own injuries.
Kevin Hague: Will she implement another point in the plan and ensure that medical assessments are undertaken by practitioners who are independent of the corporation, something that was also recommended in the last major review of ACC, undertaken by Judge Trapski in 1994?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As I have stated before, I have not yet had the opportunity to consider the member’s ideas, but I am happy to look at them and to discuss them with him.
Kevin Hague: Will she consider another point in the plan, also recommended by Judge Trapski: introducing an ACC ombudsman who would investigate the abuses of process that have characterised the culture of disentitlement in ACC over the last couple of years?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As I have said, I have not had the opportunity yet to consider the member’s ideas, but I am happy to discuss them with him.
Kevin Hague: Will she also consider another point in the plan: auditing the service delivery model at the corporation against the five Woodhouse principles; and is she prepared to work with the Green Party on her review of ACC?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As previously stated, I have not had the opportunity yet to consider the member’s ideas, but I am happy to discuss those with him.

11. ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: On how many occasions, and for what periods of time on each occasion, did she meet with or have discussions with the ACC Chairman or Chief Executive, including about the matter of the mass privacy breach involving Bronwyn Pullar, between 13 March and 19 March when that matter was referred to the Police by way of formal complaint?



Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) : The Chief Executive of ACC texted me on Tuesday, 13 March that there was a story in the Dominion Post. He subsequently spoke to me to advise that ACC was investigating the matter and he would keep me informed. I met the chair of the ACC board and the Chief Executive of ACC in Auckland on Wednesday, 14 March. The focus of that meeting was the 6,700 claimants whose privacy had been breached. On Friday, 16 March, the report from ACC was provided to me when I was in Auckland—the same day it was publicly released. I had my regular meeting with the Chief Executive of ACC, the Department of Labour, and officials on Monday, 19 March, which commenced at 4.15 p.m. I do not know whether that was before or after the final police complaint was signed.
Andrew Little: Does she accept that her answer to question No. 12 last Thursday that “The 16 March report clearly states, on page 3, that the matter was referred to police on 13 March …” is wrong, in light of both the 16 March report itself, which actually states: “The police were contacted regarding the meeting with the client in December …”, and a statement from the police last Thursday confirming that the matter was not referred to them until Monday, 19 March?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member is wrong. The report itself at 6.5 says that “The Privacy Commissioner was advised of the breach.” It then goes on at 7.0 to say that “The police were contacted regarding the meeting with the client in December and the threat made.” Quite clearly, that is a referral. It is not saying, and I did not say, that a written complaint had been signed and laid.
Andrew Little: Does she accept that the term “referral” means to hand over for consideration, investigation, or decision, and that the term “contact” does not mean handing something over? And does she understand that the police report last Thursday stated that the matter was referred to them by way of a formal complaint on 19 March?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.
Andrew Little: What information did she become aware of between 13 March and 19 March that saw the 1 December meeting change from being regarded as a privacy matter on 13 March to being a potential criminal matter justifying a police complaint on 19 March?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I cannot answer that question, because the referral was made by the Chief Executive of ACC. It was not referred to me, and I was not party to any discussions with the police.
Andrew Little: At what point did she become aware that what was originally thought of as a privacy matter was going to the police by way of a formal complaint as a potentially criminal matter?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The best information I have is that after the matter was actually signed, which was on Monday, 19 March. The other information I have is quite clear in the report on 16 March from ACC, which says: “The police were contacted regarding the meeting with the client in December and the threat made.” I do not think even Mr Little would not realise that when it says “threat made” that is clearly referring to a criminal matter; otherwise, it would not have gone to the police. The privacy matter was actually referred to the Privacy Commissioner at 6.5 of the same report.
Andrew Little: Is not the truth behind this whole affair that she wanted to cause maximum embarrassment to Michelle Boag, which is why an unusual but otherwise innocent meeting was twisted into something criminal, and a personal communication from Michelle Boag was leaked to the media from her office?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.

Question to Minister

10. ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: What responsibility does she take for failures at ACC since the 2011 Election?



Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): I take ministerial responsibility for ACC from the date I received my ministerial warrant, which was on 14 December 2011. In accordance with the Cabinet Manual, I take ministerial responsibility for the direction and the priorities of the organisation.
Andrew Little: What discussions did she have with ACC Chairman John Judge, ACC Chief Executive Ralph Stewart, or her staff about referring allegations made about Bronwyn Pullar in their 16 March report to her to the police before that reference to the police occurred?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I received a briefing from the chairman and the chief executive, and I can recall that my comment to them was that any decision that they made must be theirs and that I would stand by whatever decision they made, as is something that a Minister should do.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she say, when questioned about the leak: “The fact is, it also came from Ms Boag”; if so, was she indicating that Ms Boag was a possible source of the leak?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Without actually having the full context of that alleged statement, it would be difficult to answer, because I have learnt from experience not to take everything that is said at face value, from that member.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Is she denying that she said, when asked about the fact that she had passed the email on to Mr Judge and Mr Stewart: “The fact is, it also came from Ms Boag, so there are possibilities.”; will she deny saying that?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Without actually receiving and having a look at any transcript, I cannot answer that question that way. The fact is that without it in writing, and without proof of it, I cannot take that member as having put that supposed comment in context.
Kevin Hague: Is the Minister giving the House a categorical assurance that she neither instructed nor approved nor suggested that ACC make a complaint to the police concerning Bronwyn Pullar?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: My comments to the chair and the chief executive were that they must make their own decision. It is not for me to be involved in those individual decisions.
Hon Members: You said you backed them.
Hon Members: Back them or sack them?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Do they want to hear or not? [Interruption]
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: My statement was very clear to them: they must make their own decisions, and that I would back those decisions, whatever they were. Those decisions were made after they received their own legal advice, and I have since seen a legal opinion, prepared by Mr Judge’s Queen’s Counsel, which is after the event but which obviously took into account all of the events, which backed the decision of the board to refer that matter to the police for advice. The police were the right and proper authority to look at this issue.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, in terms of her ministerial responsibility, as to this, from a letter written by Michelle Boag, a former head of the National Party: “You will see in the correspondence attached to the email I am forwarding that while Mr Murch asked for the return of the data, he did not acknowledge that this would be contingent on reaching an agreement acceptable to both parties, which was our understanding.” That is from someone who was guilty, and convicted, of seeking to pervert the course of justice in a commission of inquiry. Is this not extortion—straight out?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not have ministerial responsibility for the actions of Ms Boag or of Ms Pullar.
Kevin Hague: Further to her answer to my earlier question, is she telling the House that Mr Judge had his own personal counsel working on the matter of the complaint to the police, as opposed to an ACC counsel?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am not sure that that is in fact what I am telling the House. I am telling the House that there was legal advice. The board—[Interruption]
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I can say that Mr Judge has advised me that he had legal advice not only from ACC and ACC’s lawyers but from his own Queen’s Counsel in this matter. I have seen the opinion and it backs up Mr Judge.
Andrew Little: What knowledge does the Minister have of ACC spending money, that ought to be spent on those who have suffered injuries, on public relations advice through Acumen Republic, including spending on polling to see how ACC’s current problems should be massaged?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is an operational matter but I would also say that—
Hon Members: Oh!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is an operational matter. It is hardly setting the policy or the direction of the board.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very simple question: what knowledge does she have? That is her responsibility. It is not an operational matter. Matters that are the Minister’s knowledge are her responsibility—something she is trying to shift.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the member to repeat the supplementary question.
Andrew Little: What knowledge does the Minister have of ACC spending money, that ought to be spent on those who have suffered injuries, on public relations advice through Acumen Republic, including spending on polling to see how ACC’s current problems should be massaged?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the board.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ministers are regularly briefed by the board, orally and in writing, as to the activities of the board. Those matters then become their knowledge, for which they are answerable here.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter that was raised in the supplementary question is in fact an operational matter. It may not satisfy the member, but the member has an answer.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked about what her knowledge was. That is not a matter of departmental responsibility. She was asked what her knowledge as Minister was. The answer may well be that she had none, and that would be a proper answer. But it is fair to ask her what knowledge she had of that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will seek some advice. Order! I have given a ruling, and I am going to stand by that. Members have further supplementary questions if they wish to pursue that. Members are seeking to actually litigate a ruling by further points of order.
Kevin Hague: If it is true that the Minister did not instruct, approve, or suggest the complaint to the police, and the matter was entirely an operational ACC matter, then why was the legal opinion sought by John Judge shown to the Minister?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is a very good question. Mr Judge sent it to me last week, because he was concerned about a story in the Dominion Post that made allegations against him. Rather than refer to the editorial policy of the Dominion Post, he felt it was right to send me the opinion that he had received.
Andrew Little: Is the Minister denying to this House that she knew that ACC has been spending money on public relations advice through Acumen Republic, including spending money on polling to see how ACC’s current problems should be massaged?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have no knowledge of any polling being paid for, and I do not know why I would have.
Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was whether she is denying that she knows that the money is being spent. It is not about her knowledge of the polling; it is about money being spent by ACC on that activity.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I think that the polling was related to the expenditure of money, and the member does have an answer.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1206/S00178/questions-and-answers-june-13.htm

Questions to Minister

6. Kevin Hague to the Minister for ACC: Does she have full trust and confidence in John Judge as ACC board chair and, if her confidence is less than full, what is she doing about that?



12. Andrew Little to the Minister for ACC: What actions, apart from inviting or observing inquiries from the Privacy Commissioner and the Auditor-General, has she taken since 12 March 2012 to see that issues arising out of the wrongful disclosure of personal information by the Accident Compensation Corporation to Bronwyn Pullar have been remedied or addressed by the Corporation?

Question to the Prime Minister

1. GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his answers to questions in the House this year?



Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. The Prime Minister has answered 36 primary questions covering a large range of topics, and if the member wants specific answers, then he will have to ask a more specific primary question.
Grant Robertson: Does he still stand by his answers that Ministers involved in the ACC saga showed only a lapse of judgment and “not a terribly significant one”, given that there are now five separate inquiries under way into the ACC saga, and why does he just simply not appoint a judge or a QC to do a proper inquiry?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, of course, the member has taken the partial view of what the Prime Minister said. The quote the member used was in respect of the first letter, I think, that the Minister for ACC at the time had written. Of course, in that case further evidence came to light and the Minister decided to stand down. We also need to bear in mind that the focus of a number of those inquiries is actually the privacy processes of ACC, which, of course, are of great interest to all those who are claimants, and might be claimants in the future. We believe that those matters are being adequately inquired into.
Grant Robertson: Does he still stand by his answers around the appropriateness of chairing the committee and appointing his electorate chair, Stephen McElrea, to the board of New Zealand On Air, given Mr McElrea’s attempt to intervene in the broadcast of a programme?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: In answer to the question about appropriateness, I did chuckle when I saw Mike Williams on TV going on about getting rid of cronyism, when he was appointed by the last Prime Minister to, I think, five large public boards, in which he interfered in every decision any of those entities made.
Grant Robertson: How can he express confidence in all of his Ministers when his Ministers have stuffed up the reform of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, stuffed up the Crafar farm decision, and when his finance Minister can give only a guess as to the real value of the assets that are his only economic plan?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: All I can say is that the Prime Minister has more confidence in his Ministers than the deputy leader of the Labour Party has in his leader.
Grant Robertson: In reference to the Prime Minister’s answers in question time on 7 March on the provision of unconditional love by his pet, and in light of what his own pollster has described as a “quartus horribilis” for his Government, will he now reconsider his apparent decision to appoint his cat Moonbeam as the Government’s strategist?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. I do not believe the Prime Minister would do that. The Prime Minister has great affection for Moonbeam, and being the Government strategist is somewhat challenging, and Moonbeam might not be up to it. [Interruption] But he is available for the Labour Party.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Grant Robertson: Does he still stand by his answer that he has confidence that he has confidence in all his Ministers, given that the Hon John Banks failed to declare a $15,000 donation from Skycity in his electoral return for the Auckland mayoralty?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister is not aware of those issues, and the inquiry should be directed to the relevant Minister. The Prime Minister would expect that all Ministers comply with the requirements of the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament and the Cabinet Manual.
Grant Robertson: Would he still have confidence in the Hon John Banks as a Minister if he was aware that Skycity publicly stated that it had given $15,000 to both main mayoral candidates in Auckland, and that it has a policy of asking those who get donations to declare them, and that that donation to Mr Banks does not appear in his return for the Auckland mayoralty expenses?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister’s concern is that members comply with the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament and with the requirements of the Cabinet Manual, and any inquiries related to that should be directed to the relevant Minister.
Grant Robertson: Would the Prime Minister continue to have confidence in a Minister who has not declared a $15,000 donation from Skycity when running for the Auckland mayoralty, given that the penalty for failure to properly declare a donation, under the Local Electoral Act, is up to 2 years in prison—enough to force a resignation from Parliament?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only repeat the answer I gave before, and in that respect the Prime Minister is more demanding than the previous Prime Minister, who tolerated a Minister who did not declare a $100,000 donation that was arranged by the Labour Party from one of the Labour Party’s principal donors.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister recall the Hon Nick Smith telling this House, at the same time, that he made a declaration of his legal fund—identical to mine—to Dame Margaret Bazley, only to have her tell this House that he lied; that he made no such declaration? Does he recall that?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not familiar with the details of that. What I am pointing out is that the Prime Minister has a standard he expects Ministers to reach, and that standard is higher than what was applied by the previous Labour Government to its Ministers.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Prime Minister is so keen on certain standards being upheld, why is he not concerned as to what Nick Smith did when, for an egregious reason being sued for defamation, he had such a fund to his pecuniary advantage whereas the fund we had was for an electoral democratic purpose?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the purpose of the significant donation to New Zealand First by Labour’s principal donor was, I think, discussed at the time. Nick Smith was involved in a defamation action. The matters around his legal fees were all canvassed, in detail, at the time.

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

Question to Minister

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



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

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

Questions to Ministers

3. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all statements made by him and on his behalf?



Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I stand by all statements made by me and those people authorised by me to speak on my behalf.
David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement that people gambling in a casino are “in a better environment than, say attached to maybe a pub”; if so, what evidence does he have to support that statement?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I most certainly do stand by that statement. Let me quote a few things for the member’s education. For a start-off, an Australian professor from the *University of Adelaide said the **National Association for Gambling Studies conference in 2008 considered Skycity’s host responsibility programme as probably the most advanced in the world. If one looks at the number of people presenting themselves for harm, on average that is around 1.9 percent of people, yet those who are presenting themselves for harm in non-casino environments are 3.8 percent. If one looks at those presenting themselves for gambling treatment, the majority cite non-casino gaming machines as their primary source of problems.
David Shearer: Why is he proposing the creation of $23 million to $28 million a year of private wealth through an increase in gambling over what would otherwise occur, when all the evidence shows that this will cause harm for thousands of New Zealanders?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I would utterly reject the number that the member is quoting. Secondly, I think it is worth having a bit of a look at gambling machines. Let us just take a look at pokie machines in the Auckland area. In 2004 that number in the Auckland area was 5,111; today that is 4,227. The number is, as the member can see, in the order of around 900 fewer, and will continue to go lower even if a deal is done with Skycity over time.
David Shearer: I seek leave to table a document by Goldman Sachs on 23 March that sets out clearly that the amount of funds that Skycity will earn from the gambling bill will be between $23 million and $28 million.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
David Shearer: Is he aware that Goldman Sachs has estimated—and obviously he is not—that Skycity would make $23 million to $28 million a year of additional profit from the increase in the number of pokie machines; if so, does he regard this and his changes to the Gambling Act* as legislation for sale?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In terms of the latter point, no. In terms of the first point, the member answered his own question earlier, when he said that that is Goldman Sachs’ assessment. If one goes and has a look at the—[Interruption] Well, the deal actually has not been concluded yet. I might add, when we were out announcing that we were doing a deal with Len Brown in Auckland, he was quite a little lamb chops before the election, because Len Brown knew as well that it will create 1,000 jobs in its construction, 900 jobs ongoing, hundreds of thousands of visitor nights for a convention centre, tourists that will be spending twice as much in New Zealand, and that by the way, the number of gaming machines is going down, not up.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear this question.
David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement about the ACC Minister that he “directly asked her the question on two occasions” as to whether the leak of the email sent by Michelle Boag* came from the Minister, her office, or an agency she was responsible for; and what occurred after the Minister’s first denial that required him to ask her a second time?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and that was because we had two conversations in which both times, actually, the Minister offered that.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is just impossible to hear. I accept that both sides have been guilty of a lot of noise today, but it makes it so hard to hear.
David Shearer: Further to the answer given on his behalf last Thursday, did his office contact Cameron Slater* on the question of the leak of the Boag letter?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, it did not.
David Shearer: Did he chair the Cabinet appointments and honours committee* that appointed his Helensville electorate chair, Stephen McElrea,* to the board of *New Zealand On Air?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and it was the same one that appointed Michael Cullen to New Zealand Post.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The smaller parties at the back are not guilty in any way in this; it is the main parties at the front here whose noise is unacceptable.
David Shearer: Did he at any time last year indicate to the receivers or the ANZ Bank that the sale of the Crafar farms to *Shanghai Pengxin would be considered favourably by his Government after last year’s election?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.
Mr SPEAKER: I had not even called the *right honourable Prime Minister. The question asked whether the Prime Minister stood by all his statements or those made on his behalf, and then the supplementary questions are ranging over a range of issues that are not necessarily—Order! I want to make sure they do not depart too far from the primary question.
David Shearer: Does he think that the interference of senior National Party members in all of these incidents leads to a perception of political interference, special treatment, or cronyism?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! What troubles me about that supplementary question is the primary question asked about recent statements, but that supplementary question does not refer to any particular statement. The question—unless I am reading the wrong question—asked: “Does he stand by all statements made by him and on his behalf?”, and several supplementary questions have not referred to any statement made by the right honourable Prime Minister. I listened very carefully to that last question. I heard no reference to a statement made by the Prime Minister. I do not want to deprive the member of his questions, so if the member can relate it to a statement by the Prime Minister, I would be very grateful. Please relate the question to the primary question.
David Shearer: Do his answers to the supplementary questions relate to a sense of the incidence of—a perception of—political interference, special treatment, and cronyism?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, and that is why the New Zealand public support this National Government so strongly.

5. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Justice: Why has she declined to accept the Law Commission’s recommendation, supported by the Privacy Commissioner, to increase the Privacy Commissioner’s investigative powers, including by giving her the power to issue compliance notices, and to conduct information-handling audits?



Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): The member is quite wrong.
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I took care in wording the primary question. The Minister has had time to consider it. I wonder whether she would like to—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The Minister said the member had made errors in his question. She said it was wrong. I cannot know whether the Minister is right or wrong. The solution is to pursue the Minister with incisive supplementary questions.*
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Primary questions go through an authentication process through the Office of the Clerk, so it is not as if a groundless proposition is being put to the Minister here. I wonder whether you might just think about whether or not this is a precedent we want to see followed in future.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The process of the Office of the Clerk approving questions—just because the question has been validated—does not make the question right. There may be support material provided to validate a question, and the Clerk’s Office accepts it, but that does not mean that any supposed fact or statement contained in the question is correct. That is up to the Minister. The Minister has asserted pretty emphatically that something in this question is not right. It is worth pursuing that to find out what it is.
Charles Chauvel: Without the powers that the Privacy Commissioner says she needs to do her job, how can the House have any confidence that the Privacy Commissioner will be able to fully investigate high-profile or important privacy breaches, such as the question of whether the Minister, or any one in her office, improperly disclosed the *Bronwyn Pullar email and associated information?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There are, in fact, a range of responses that the Law Commission has suggested we make in terms of the Privacy Act. However, I note that the member who has just resumed his seat was in a Government that was in office for 9 years and did not address them—
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —but the Privacy Commissioner—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite Charles Chauvel to repeat his question.
Charles Chauvel: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Without the powers that the Privacy Commissioner says she needs to do her job, how can the House have any confidence that the Privacy Commissioner will be able to properly investigate high-profile privacy breaches, such as the question of whether the Minister, or any one in her office, improperly disclosed the Bronwyn Pullar email and associated information?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member is yet again wrong. The inquiry by the Privacy Commissioner is—and this is all I can really say on it—relating to privacy matters in ACC and what has happened to particular emails and other documents. It is not specifically about my office. So that is wrong. But the Privacy Commissioner already has powers under section—[Interruption] Do they want to hear it or not, Mr Speaker?
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Privacy Commissioner already has a range of powers, which she set out for the Hon Trevor Mallard and me. They are, obviously, broad powers and roles under section *13 of the Privacy Act; also under section *90 to freely obtain information and make inquiries; under section *91 to require information and evidence to be produced and to summon witnesses; and under section *76 to require a person to attend a compulsory conference. There is an obligation to comply with the requirements of the commissioner, set out in section *92. There are also other relevant powers. In fact, there is the entire Privacy Act, and I suggest that member reads it.
Jonathan Young: What is the Government already doing to implement the recommendations from the Law Commission’s review of the Privacy Act?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Government has already acted to address the immediate need for better information-sharing for public service delivery through the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill*, which is expected to be passed later this year. The Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill will improve the rules around the collection, storage, and use of personal information, while ensuring there are safeguards in place to protect an individual’s right to privacy.
Charles Chauvel: Why is the Minister exacerbating the Privacy Commissioner’s inability to press fully for answers in this matter by invoking the public interest defence in this House as a ground for refusing to answer legitimate questions from members, thereby further preventing relevant information from entering the public domain?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member is quite wrong, again. This is actually an issue for the Privacy Commissioner, and as an independent body, which she is, she needs to be free to conduct her investigations without the sorts of lies and manipulations that people have said in this place.
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to reflect on whether that answer was in order, particularly the final phrase of it.
Mr SPEAKER: I heard what the Minister said. A member cannot accuse another member of lying. I am not sure the Minister actually did that. She referred to lies and things in this place. I do not like ruling more and more stuff out. It was certainly on the margins—I accept that, absolutely.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, if that was not offensive to this side of the House, then it was a description of her own behaviour that she was talking about. That is the only way she can survive the challenge from the honourable member over here. He says it was offensive—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard the member, and I think the member’s point is not unreasonable. I think the Minister should get to her feet, please, and withdraw and apologise.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes. I withdraw and apologise.
Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister.
Charles Chauvel: Why is she further trying to prevent relevant information from entering the public domain by threatening news media and members of this House with meritless defamation proceedings, and just what is it that she has to hide?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Minister of Justice has no ministerial authority or responsibility for that, and that member should know better.

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