Very Little proof

June 21st, 2012 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

  bosses laid a police complaint alleging blackmail by claimant Bronwyn Pullar and Michelle Boag after being pressured by their minister , Labour MP says.

In a general debate at Parliament this afternoon Mr Little claimed that during a meeting between ACC Ralph Stewart, chairman John Judge and Ms Collins in Auckland the day after a massive privacy breach at ACC was revealed, Ms Collins told the two men to “go after Michelle Boag”.

“She urged and pressured and pressed the chief executive and chairman of the board to make a complaint to the police and that’s what they did”.

It seems Andrew has learnt one lesson. He has refused to repeat this claim outside the House, so is hiding behind parliamentary privilege.

If he had been able to produce even one shred of evidence for his previous claims about the Minister, then one might give him the benefit of the doubt on this issue. But we’re all still waiting for his proof.

Anyone can get up in the House and claim anything about another MP. They have a legally privileged right to do so. but it is an abuse of that right if you do not have some proof for your assertions.

Tags: , ,

18 Responses to “Very Little proof”

  1. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    Andrew Little, the political dwarf.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. lastmanstanding (1,300 comments) says:

    Little and Mallard are all mouth. Full of shit. Having said that those of us who were around when the Woodhouse Report was written and before that in the days of worker compo claims have seen ACC move well away from what we expected and what the Woodhouse Report recommended.

    The problem is too many people are getting money and other support they shouldnt be getting and some are not getting enough or anything.

    I for one have (touch wood) never had to make an ACC calim in all the years of ACC but Im heard and seen far too instances to support what I say above.

    IMHO ACC is a deeply flawed organisation with the wrong culture and poor governance and leadership. The fish rots from the head and the ACC fish has been a festering rotten thing for decades.

    Its so broken I dont believe it can be fixed. It should be disbanned and a completly new structure established with a bunch of people who understand what good governance is ( the past lot havent) and a will capacity and capability to govern to meet its mandate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Keeping Stock (10,405 comments) says:

    According to a couple of journalists commenting on Twitter, he called Collins a “sociopath” in the House yesterday; so much for the nice, caring and sensitive Left.

    Katie Bradford-Crozi ‏@katieabradford

    Andrew Little used parliamentary privilege to call Judith Collins a sociopath. She didn’t hear it but says he’s wrong on everything.
    Expand

    Reply
    Retweet
    Favorite

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

    Judith Collins could prove that Little is utterly wrong by releasing the details of her meetings and communications with Stewart and Judge. I’m suprised she hasn’t done so. Maybe she has something to hide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Keeping Stock (10,405 comments) says:

    Or maybe Ross, it’s because the Privacy Commissioner is investigating the matter, and she does not want to prejudice an inquiry. Isn’t that refreshing?

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

    And let’s not forget: “[Collins] said Stewart and Judge had her backing in going to the police. ‘If they hadn’t done that I think they would have been possibly accused of not taking action to protect people’s files and privacy.’”

    Collins’ rationale for the police complaint – which she supported – makes no sense. How is complaining about Pullar to police helping to improve people’s files and privacy? If she can’t be honest with the public, she should step aside.

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

    > she does not want to prejudice an inquiry

    Collins has already publicly commented on the matter. Have you got any other excuses you’d like to wheel out?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Nookin (3,454 comments) says:

    “How is complaining about Pullar to police helping to improve people’s files and privacy?”

    To most people it would be obvious that the threat of a police prosecution would deter people making improper use of information which was unlawfully in their possession. It’s a bit like prosecution for receiving. No receivers – fewer thieves. That, however does not fit comfortably with your own bigotted view of the world so stew away in your own bile.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Nostradamus (3,433 comments) says:

    *Squeak* *Squeak*

    Oh, I see, it’s just Ross69.

    Judith Collins could prove that Little is utterly wrong by releasing the details of her meetings and communications with Stewart and Judge. I’m suprised she hasn’t done so. Maybe she has something to hide.

    No, Ross, the way it usually works is that a person who makes an allegation has to prove it.

    What should we take from the fact that Little (by name and nature) has so far not done so. Could he have something to hide?

    But I guess there’s no point trying to debate with a moron, as you’ve shown when it comes to anything involving Judith Collins, you’re not exactly objective and balanced.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. PaulL (6,035 comments) says:

    Ross69: stretching a bit aren’t you?

    Collins hauled ACC in to work out what was going on. They told her that Pullar had made threats, and that’s why they were acting as they were. Collins did the classic put up or shut up. Either you have substance to your allegation and you make a report to the police, or you stop being arseholes to a claimant. They chose the former. And are now discovering that making stuff up might not have been a great idea.

    Not sure how this all becomes Collins problem – she did exactly what any competent Minister would have done. She cannot direct her department, and she cannot make a decision to ignore what prima facie were serious allegations. But she made them materialise it, instead of wittering on about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Dave Stringer (188 comments) says:

    Re:

    the ACC fish has been a festering rotten thing for decades

    Happily (and sadly – a conundrum,) this is not true.

    While Garry Wilson was CEO at ACC there was a culture of service and assistance, and many initiatives were launched by the HR Group of that time to encourage and instil such a culture.

    What Garry was able to bring to the corporation was some basic good management skills not predetermined attitude cast by involvement with the insurance industry. Since then there has been the tenure of a medical Doctor whose claim to fame was as CE of a loss making DHB, and most recently another ex-insurance industry CE.

    Perhaps bringing Mr. Wilson back as Chairman would have a positive affect (again) on the corporation’s attitude and culture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Nookin (3,454 comments) says:

    PaulL
    Added to which she had seen a QC opinion to the effct that a police complaint was warranted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    And let’s not forget: “[Collins] said Stewart and Judge had her backing in going to the police. ‘If they hadn’t done that I think they would have been possibly accused of not taking action to protect people’s files and privacy.’”

    Do you have more than one brain cell? This could have played out a lot like what happened to me recently. One of my colleagues had my backing very recently, I defended them even to the point I could have been sidelined from some major projects to the detriment of my career. I took him at his word as I had no reason to doubt his honesty, then I found out he had been less than honest with me – he no longer has his job either.

    Did it ever cross your mind ross, that Collins could have backed them as she had no reason to doubt them – but then found the two had acted inappropriately?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Keeping Stock (10,405 comments) says:

    @ Bevan – no; that won’t have crossed Ross69’s mind because he has convenced himself that Judith Collins is the devil incarnate, and that Andrew Little is the Saviour of the Universe. So let’s just let him stay deluded :P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. cows4me (248 comments) says:

    Wouldn’t it be great if this went to court. Trev would be able to make a bit of extra cash and sell tickets to the public gallery.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Nick K (1,253 comments) says:

    Or of course what probably happened was that Stewart a Judge were probably urging the Minister to do something about the “blackmail” attempt, and kept harassing her about it; and she probably kept saying “I can’t, if you think a crime is broken go to the Police”.

    Rule number one: Never ever believe Labour.
    Rule number two: Repeat rule number one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. thedavincimode (6,867 comments) says:

    This guy is a fucking idiot. He thought he was onto something but it turned out to be his own stupidity.

    He’s lumbered around this Pullar business fucking up his questions at question time, pursued questions that have already been answered or that are simply incorrect based on Collins’ earlier replies, and generally looked like a dickhead of the first order.

    Why does the Speaker allow this accusation given that during question time, not only did Collins categorically deny putting pressure on the ACC CEO, her answers made it quite clear that the decision had been made independently. If he had responded to Collins at question time calling her a liar (which is, in effect, what he’s done here) he would have got a big smack on his sorry lame little arse.

    It seems odd that he is allowed to effectively call the Minister a liar in Parliament in the circumstances.

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

    Nookin (1,927) Says:
    June 21st, 2012 at 3:19 pm
    PaulL
    “Added to which she had seen a QC opinion to the effct that a police complaint was warranted.”

    Funny thing is Nookin QC Hugh Rennie had no role in advising ACC ‘to file’ a complaint with Police, despite what the Prime Minister and Minister Collins are misleading people tom believe.
    Furthermore there was NO supportive evidence of the alleged threats that ACC claimed had been made when investigated by Police.

    Either Hugh Rennie’s advice is useless, or this is just more spin and lies from ACC. I suspect the later is the case given ACC’s track record.

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