This entry was posted on Monday, June 11th, 2012 at 12:00 pm and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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.
”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.
@ 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.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.