60 minutes

June 11th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Did you watch 60 minutes last night? What were your impressions?

Tags: ,

46 Responses to “60 minutes”

  1. Alan Wilkinson (1,867 comments) says:

    Yep. Judge is incompetent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    I caught part of it.

    ACC from the Chairman down looked like duplicitous tools/fools.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. rolla_fxgt (311 comments) says:

    My impression was that 2 senior managers will soon be looking for a new job. And one Doctor Burgess should be facing the medical council to explain why he should keep his medical licence.

    Pullar came across all right, a bit angry/peeved, but from my experience that’s par for the course after dealing with ACC for more than a few months.

    The whole Police thing just makes it look 100% like ACC, or at the very least the managers, were out to discredit Pullar, at all costs. Both my partner and I both looked at each other, and wondered if the managers panicked when questioned by the board or CEO, and had to come up with something quick that didn’t make them look, like well they don’t actually do any work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Mlec (13 comments) says:

    Should we be entrusting our hard earned ACC levys to these clowns?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Emma (10 comments) says:

    I think Bronwyn was vindicated for the most part but the interview was biased and cumbersome. This was not high quality reporting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. trout (933 comments) says:

    Boag is one clever operator; it may not have been extortion but she and Pullar made clear at the outset of negotiations that they had a strong lever (personal ACC files) to bargain with, and the ACC flunkies responded. In view of Pullar’s history with ACC and the shenanigans she has uncovered I understand her frustrations and her use of the files to lend power to her side of the negotiations. Her later release to the media of the files can be seen as an attempt to punish ACC – no doubt also because of frustration. As to her case for proper compensation; it looks pretty genuine to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Pete George (23,434 comments) says:

    More confirmation of longstanding and very concerining problems with ACC, and confirmation the management is not up to dealing with it. An inquiry into the management, culture, privacy security and direction of ACC is overdue and essential.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Dan (44 comments) says:

    What puzzles me is how it has been asked/expected that Pullar would return the files that had been sent to her.

    It’s email.
    How do you ‘return’ files that have been emailed to you?
    Or does everyone actually understand/agree that ‘return’ is simply a metaphor for Pullar deleting the email she received?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. wf (418 comments) says:

    Didn’t catch it all, what is it that Pullar wants, exactly? I thought she had settled for an undisclosed sum with her health insurers.

    My feeling is that with Boag’s encouragement she is pulling a political stunt, and like many brain-injured people has become fixated on one thing.

    But as I have never had any dealings with ACC, I can’t really comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    ACC is completely and utterly dysfunctional, and Minister Judith Collins should concern herself with sorting out the department rather than worrying about her tarnished reputation. Oh and if I’m ever in the unfortunate position of needing ACC’s assistance, I will ensure than any conversation is recorded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Alan Wilkinson (1,867 comments) says:

    Emma, I don’t agree. Melanie Reid is a very good reporter. We’ll see if it was selective by ACC’s response. So far it looks as though they have none.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    John Key has gotten himself involved in the issue and, perhaps unsurprisingly, has made a dick of himself in the process.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7079141/PM-wades-into-ACC-Pullar-debate

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Matthew Hooton (128 comments) says:

    Dan@12.40 pm – I have thought the same thing. The way this has been reported it is as if we live in a world without email, where the documents were posted to Pullar. Not only that, but photocopiers have never been invented. Nor mimeographs. Nor even monks copying out bibles. What is the deal with her “returning the file”? The issue surely is that she destroy it and all copies and computer memory of it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,880 comments) says:

    I have personal experience of Melanie Reid’s reporting for Sixty Minutes. She [deleted by DPF] then and I have no reason to think she has changed.

    You need to take this show with a very large grain of salt and much suspicion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. hmmokrightitis (1,585 comments) says:

    Alan, “Yep. Judge is incompetent.” LIke there was doubt about that :)

    Hell, the man couldnt even keep his ‘other home’ a secret for long :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Liberty (257 comments) says:

    There is a number at ACC who should be shot at dawn.
    But they will then want a payment form ACC for having a bad day.
    Better just to give them a DCM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Julian (173 comments) says:

    In my opinion there was an implicit threat, when Pullar and Boag said they possessed the data. (I note there was a five minute conversation about it which it would be useful to hear). The ACC managers appear to have overstated the threat though, and effectively said that it was explicit. Either way, ACC probably had no choice but to call the police when Pullar wouldn’t destroy it immediately. (The destroy/return issue is a red herring).

    ACC should have just released a statement saying ‘we believe it was a matter for the police to sort out’.

    Judge’s handling of the issue, and his interview, were both incompetent and confrontational. He needs to go.

    Pullar seems to have a legitimate claim, but it’s hard to tell because the information shown on the program was so selective.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. wynkie (86 comments) says:

    Julian, Pullar DID return the file to ACC and ACC confirmed receipt of it.

    Clearly you are still believe this bullshit spinning out of ACC.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Alan Wilkinson (1,867 comments) says:

    Actually I think the implicit threat came from ACC.

    By talking about making the approval of further support conditional on “return” of the data I suspect they were actually going to draft a legal commitment that would silence her regarding its illegal and incompetent release to her.

    As others rightly point out, all she had was a copy which obviously they didn’t want returned since they already had it. Instead they wanted her to commit to deleting all versions of it and not show or send it to any other party. 99:1 they would also have phrased the disclosure clause so that it prevented even disclosure that it had been sent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Julian (173 comments) says:

    Wynkie: Not at that point she didn’t. They admitted that last night. The settlement they discussed in the meeting stipulated that she would have to return/destroy the file.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Ross12 (1,383 comments) says:

    Ross69
    I heard Hosking’s interview with John Key and I don’t think he ” made a dick of himself”. He made it clear he did not see the TV3 interview and also made it quite clear he saw it as an operational metter at this stage. ( The comments by Boag in the D Levy article is really a matter of semantics –there is no way the listener to Keys comments would infer that Pullar had some sort illness prior to the accident)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. alex Masterley (1,507 comments) says:

    Ross69
    What Ross12 said.
    I heard the interview as well.
    You need to take what you read in Stuff and the Herald with a grain of salt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Nookin (3,266 comments) says:

    I agree with Ross 12 and Alex.
    Key did not “wade in”. He was asked a question and gave a qualified answer.
    Key did not say that Pullar had a pre-existing conditon but said that this was the issue ( to be determined by ACC at operational level).

    It must be clear to all concerned that Ross69 is wholly incapable of any objective view on anything involving National. He is, in a couple of words, a shameless troll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    You both must have missed Key’s comment:

    ”What is clear is that ACC deals with a huge number of complaints, a huge amount of data and there are always people who feel the system hasn’t treated them fairly and that is partly because the big dispute always comes around the definition of a pre-existing condition,” he told Newstalk. ”That at one level is at the heart of what sits with this Bronwyn Pullar claim.”

    Clearly, the inference is that Pullar – according to Key – had a pre-existing condition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. PaulD (97 comments) says:

    @ Ross12 “there are always people who feel the system hasn’t treated them fairly and that is partly because the big dispute always comes around the definition of a pre-existing condition,” he told Newstalk.

    ”That at one level is at the heart of what sits with this Bronwyn Pullar claim.” How can the listener not infer that Key thinks that at some level the dispute is about pre-existing condition? Unless he was thinking of the attempt to get a group of Nats to attest to her high level of performance prior to the accident.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Thanks, Nookin, for adding nothing. Work must be quiet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    PaulD,

    You’re talking to the Rabid Right on here…appealing to their common sense is never going to work because it isn’t so common.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. 103PapPap (131 comments) says:

    I observed several things.
    I thought Melanie Reid’s conclusions were overly dramatic. She saw things in emails that weren’t there. She claims to have listened to the whole tape, but Pullar previously admitted that she had edited the tape ‘to remove personal information’.
    I got the impression that Pullar was ‘playing for the crowd’ with her dramatic tears and semi-faints.
    My understanding is that the emailed spreadsheet was mainly a list of names, but no actual information about those people named. This makes the claim about ‘personal information’ over the top.
    I observed that Pullar was ‘out to get’ the ACC and ‘teach them a lesson’. I got this because Pullar said those words. Also by getting an attack dog (Boag) involved, she has made it plain that she is after vengeance, so ACC must be very careful.
    It does appear that the bureaucratic monster that is ACC hasn’t always got it’s ducks aligned before firing.
    Looks like a lose-lose to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Nookin (3,266 comments) says:

    A pleasure Ross. Now you know hoe every else feels about every one of your posts. Work is far from quiet. I do get a coffee break every now and again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. 3-coil (1,215 comments) says:

    There was more communication at the face-to-face meeting than the recording on the tape.

    The detailed discussion re the return of the ACC client details made it clear that it was part and parcel of any agreement between Pullar and ACC regarding her continued payments, yet we didn’t hear any of that previous conversation – we are only getting selected bits of the story. Why have TV3 censored some of the vital information out?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Ross12 (1,383 comments) says:

    Ross69

    “Clearly, the inference is that Pullar – according to Key – had a pre-existing condition.”

    Ross your mate PaulD has sort of clarified it for you. What Key was saying was simply that the dispute with ACC and Pullar is that the ACC think Pullar had a pre existing condition — and that this is often at the base of disputes with many ACC cases.
    Key DID NOT say that Pullar had pre-existing condition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. sifty (23 comments) says:

    Its a well known proven medical fact that the higher the amount and prospect of compensation the less the chance of recovery. I strongly suspect that Ms Pullar already had a case of what is called FITH Syndrome ( don”t expect to find a definition in the medical books but most doctors will be able to tell you what it is) which has been exacerbated by her obsession with further compensation than she already has received. 103PapPap has summarised the whole sorry saga well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. PaulD (97 comments) says:

    @103PapPap As far as the spreadsheet goes, apparently there was enough to identify that 250 people had “sensitive claims”. Even that would be more detail than those people would want disclosed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Nostalgia-NZ (5,097 comments) says:

    I wish Key had moved the matter of ‘pre existing condition’ on a bit, it seems to be the most unfair, and possibly the highest cost-absorber in the service ACC are meant to be providing. Levies don’t go down in anticipation, or for pre existing conditions, but they’re on the table straight away when it comes to a claim. Be interesting to know how much of ACC’s budget is spent on ‘defending’ or minimising claims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > we are only getting selected bits of the story

    You would know that because you were at the meeting? Tell us what was said. Of course ACC could tell us but they are only interested in smearing. Weird.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. ephemera (564 comments) says:

    If “it isn’t just about Bronwyn Pullar,” why not bring other people with similar experiences into the picture and build a campaign?

    It’s a one-woman crusade, which doesn’t look great if your trying to convince people your grievances aren’t petty and personal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > My understanding is that the emailed spreadsheet was mainly a list of names, but no actual information about those people named.

    Your understanding is wrong. Which might explain why ACC has had to apologise to each of those affected by ACC’s breach of privacy.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/6569710/ACC-to-send-mountain-of-apologies

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Excellent..Does anyone know whether the ACC profit figure for last year Bronwyn quoted is correct?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Whaleoil (767 comments) says:

    Actually Ross69 it is you who is wrong. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10806677

    “ACC’s Bronwyn Pullar email blunder was at the lower end of breaches for the individual claimants affected, the Privacy Commission says.

    But one angry ACC client says the response minimises the distress caused by the breach.

    The woman’s “sensitive claim” status – identifying her as a victim of rape or sexual abuse – was part of the information mistakenly emailed to Ms Pullar by an ACC manager last year.

    The ACC claimant complained to the Privacy Commissioner after the privacy breach involving 6700 claimants was reported in March.

    Yesterday, she received a response from assistant Privacy Commissioner Mike Flahive in which he noted the commission was investigating the breach and wider privacy issues at the corporation with the help of accounting firm KPMG and the former Australian Privacy Commissioner Malcolm Crompton.”

    There has been a great deal of scare mongering over this file. Most of it frankly is appalling journalism from the Dominion Post and one journalist in particular.

    Having been interviewed now by the aforementioned Mike Flahive regarding this matter I find it incredible that the media still don’t have it right about the file itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Chris2 (772 comments) says:

    It is apparent that there are failings with ACC’s handling of the case, and Pullar’s behaviour too.

    Pullar sure has the goods on ACC and they have alot to answer for. Pullar seems obsessed with the ACC (ie the taxpayer) funding her lifestyle. If she has so much energy to spend almost a decade in this pursuit than maybe the time has arrived for her to put that energy into doing a proper day’s work. She can’t really claim an inability to work when she has roomful of correspondence with ACC.

    I think the public might have been better placed to asses Pullar’s entitlements if the reporter has asked Pullar how much her privater insurer has paid her, and how much ACC has already given her over the last decade. My understanding is that collectively, it is well in excess of a million dollars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Alan Wilkinson (1,867 comments) says:

    “ACC’s Bronwyn Pullar email blunder was at the lower end of breaches for the individual claimants affected, the Privacy Commission says.”

    Yes, but because it was only disclosed to Ms Pullar who didn’t give it to anyone else. Not because the data was innocuous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. big bruv (13,702 comments) says:

    From what I know of this case Puller is no better than a certain bludger who thinks he has a right to our money to fund his lifestyle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    The ACC is using capitalist ideas on a socialist set up… it only works well in accountants books.
    I also think Bronwyn Pullar was laying it on a bit think… for her own personal reasons… but she makes a good point… there are lots of genuine ACC claimants now being denied their rights for full entitlements to ACC because of ACC bulling tactics… designed to cut costs. I would say the same system is being applied right through the Govt Social Services and genuine claimants are being denied the same. The system needs an overview so those with genuine need are not panished.. by a cost cutting venture designed only for the accountants books only.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    big bruv – speaking of too much time online…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > Actually Ross69 it is you who is wrong

    I don’t think so. I’ve had the misfortune to deal with Mr Flahive and his job, it seems, is to minimise the effect of any privacy breaches. Alas he cannot be trusted.

    http://laudafinem.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/10730/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    Oh do fuck off ‘Ross’ and take the link whoring to your sad union hack blog with you. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.