Little Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Little Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:2810. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
 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? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I have stayed in close contact with and required regular updates from the chief executive on what steps he is taking to build a culture of privacy and information security at ACC and rebuild public trust and confidence. In the last 3 months I have also visited nine ACC offices and spoken personally with staff emphasising the need for privacy and information security. I would like to point out to that member that both my visits and the message about privacy have been extremely well received. I would also like to point out that while the Privacy Commissioner is reviewing ACC’s privacy processes it is sensible to wait for her recommendations. However I have supported ACC in the steps it has taken so far. 
Andrew Little 
: What action has the Minister taken to ensure the advice she receives from the corporation is accurate in light of both a police inquiry and a television current affairs programme confirming that the statement in the 16 March 2012 report to her from ACC concerning Bronwyn Pullar that “She made threats that if her demands were not met she would not return the information and she would inform the media of the alleged privacy issue.” was not true? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am not in a position to answer that in the way in which the member has asked the question. The reason is that it is still subject to inquiries by both the Auditor-General and the Privacy Commissioner. I think it is important to try not to tread all over those inquiries. 
Andrew Little 
: What action has she taken in light of the High Court injunction issued against an ACC claimant Mr T just 2 weeks ago on 28 May 2012 ordering him not to disclose personal information improperly disclosed to him by the corporation to ensure that the corporation is serious about fixing its information management problems? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am sure that I have answered that in my answer to the primary question. The fact is the issue that that member raises occurred in 2008. There has been a lot of work done at ACC since then. If the member would like me to I can outline some of the steps that have been taken in the last 3 months. ACC advises me that it has cooperated with KPMG to carry out an extensive review of its processes and policies around privacy and information security. It has undertaken to implement all recommendations arising from independent inquiries into privacy and information security. It has agreed to implement a zero-tolerance policy of security breaches. A number of initiatives already implemented within ACC include refresher training for all staff the establishment of a privacy response team to answer queries and complaints training privacy champions to promote ACC’s privacy culture and practice identifying system and process changes to support privacy improvements and interviewing private and public sector agencies to discuss— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister is doing very well but I think the House does not need to hear too much more of that. 
Andrew Little 
: What is more important to her: fulfilling her public duty to ensure ACC acts with honesty and integrity towards her and the public of New Zealand or pursuing her own personal and private interests in suing her political opponents and fund-raising for her legal costs because— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet if it has escaped members’ attention. That question is out of order. That brings to a close questions— 
Hon Members 
: Why’s it out of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members have interjected “Why was it out of order?”. Perhaps a point of order should have been raised rather than just interjecting “Why was it out of order?”. But if I heard the question correctly it referred to a matter that is before the court and that is why it was out of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It referred to the fact that the Minister was taking action. It referred to nothing before a court. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What I believe I heard did refer to a matter that was before the court and I was not about to allow that to be pursued in the House. The House is to hold the executive to account and not to be pursuing matters that are before the court and that is why I ruled that way.