Robertson Grant: Urgent Debates — Accident Compensation Corporation—Release of Personal Information 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Urgent Debates — Accident Compensation Corporation—Release of Personal Information 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2012. Volume:678;Page:1071. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. The president the Minister and the party public relations person—it could not get much murkier. To hear the Minister for ACC Judith Collins stand up in the House today and say that an inquiry is being launched because the Privacy Commissioner is going to look at it is simply not enough. The Privacy Commissioner is just going to say she will deal with matters of privacy. She will not be able to deal with what role the Hon Dr Nick Smith has played in this situation. 
How can a Minister come in front of the New Zealand public and say that they are being transparent that they are behaving in a way that is in line with the  
Cabinet Manual 
 when they write a letter on behalf of someone that they knew had a longstanding complaint with ACC? They knew all along—the Minister knew for some time. He has acknowledged that he knew that Bronwyn Pullar had a longstanding issue with ACC. So how can the Minister write a letter that includes statements like this: “To the best of my knowledge she did not have any health or other conditions or issues that would have compromised her capacity to work.”? What is the one thing that ACC is interested in in a case like this? The capacity of a person to work. The Minister’s letter goes to the heart of Bronwyn Pullar’s complaints that she has towards ACC. 
The Minister goes on. He finishes his letter—on ministerial letterhead as the Minister for ACC—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but there is far too much chatter going on which is disrespectful to the member who is trying to address the House. I suggest that people who want to have private conversations do so in the lobby. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: The letter that the Hon Dr Nick Smith writes on ministerial letterhead as the Minister for ACC concludes with the statement: “I wish to put this on record so to assist in any comparative assessment of Bronwyn’s current health.” What else would a comparative assessment of someone’s health be used for other than in their ACC case? The Minister is conflicted here. 
The Minister says he has made an error of judgment. I would suggest it is much more serious than that. Nick Smith has been around politics for a very very long time and he knows that writing this kind of letter on ministerial letterhead is completely inappropriate. It creates a conflict of interest. It puts ACC in an extremely difficult position when the Minister is writing in situations like this. There is only one possible reason that a note like this would be written and that reason is to influence ACC. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from a note written on ministerial letterhead that says that Nick Smith is the Minister for ACC where he discusses a person’s capacity to work and he discusses a comparative assessment of that person’s health. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn. 
This Minister Nick Smith—the Minister for ACC when he wrote this letter—has acted inappropriately against  
Cabinet Manual 
 guidelines. The question today for John Key is what standard is acceptable for his Ministers. John Key came into being Prime Minister saying he was going to lift the standard of behaviour of Ministers. The problem is that this behaviour from Nick Smith falls well below any standard that should be acceptable for Ministers especially in dealing with ACC. As every member in this House will know ACC cases are difficult they can be very sensitive and they require the highest standards of integrity and judgment from everybody involved in the case. Nick Smith has shown low standards of integrity and low standards of judgment in writing a letter on behalf of someone who he has said was a friend who he said he knew had a complaint with ACC. He has breached all manner of protocols that bind ministerial behaviour. 
In ACC what we know is that it is the situation here where we have very sensitive information that has been released. I want to put on the record from the Labour Party side of the House that our hearts go out to the 6700 people whose sensitive information has been put into the public arena. Every single member of this House I would venture to suggest if they have not already by the time they finish their career in Parliament will have dealt with a sensitive ACC case. They often come on the back of years and years of suffering for people. They are at a stage in their lives sometimes when they are still coming to grips with actually what has happened to them let alone what they might be able to do to recover to rehabilitate. This breach of that trust this breach of that privacy is among the most serious things that could happen to someone who has a case with ACC. So our hearts do go out to those 6700 people. I myself have spoken to two of those people who are my constituents and this has hurt them. 
We need to take that seriously. We need to take it seriously enough Minister that an inquiry that is limited just to the privacy aspects is not enough. Yes that is an important element to see what privacy issues have been raised by this case but—it is certainly not a laughing matter Minister. It is certainly not a laughing matter as to whether privacy has been breached for 6700 people. How their details came to be in the public arena needs an independent inquiry that is not limited to just privacy. 
I would suggest that in fact the Auditor-General is probably the person who should look into this because the Auditor-General can look into the actions of Nick Smith of Judith Collins and of the ACC managers and indeed into the privacy breach as well. But limiting this inquiry to the Privacy Commissioner is an attempt by the National Government to ensure that its people—Nick Smith Michelle Boag its people—do not get drawn into the inquiry. Well that is not good enough—that is not good enough. In a situation like this Judith Collins needs to put aside her loyalties to Michelle Boag put aside her loyalties to Bronwyn Pullar put aside her loyalties to Nick Smith and actually front up and let New Zealanders— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Ha ha! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: The Minister is cackling away over there. In a situation where the privacy of some of the most vulnerable people in New Zealand has been put at risk all Judith Collins can do is laugh. That is all Judith Collins can do. New Zealanders who have been through harrowing experiences—harrowing experiences—are having their information put into the public arena and Judith Collins laughs. I think that is a disgrace. 
The release of this data and this information is mixed in with a very very murky situation. What was Michelle Boag a former president of the National Party doing in these sorts of meetings? Bronwyn Pullar is somebody whom members on the other side of the House have clearly got close relationships with and why was Michelle Boag in there making sure that there was an outcome? Now we have claim and counterclaim about what occurred at that meeting in December. On one hand we have Michelle Boag saying that there may possibly have been a deal that there may possibly have been a discussion of a deal. Bronwyn Pullar seems to think there was and ACC is saying there was not. We need to clear that up because this cuts to the heart of Government administration in this country. It cuts to the heart of a neutral Public Service. 
ACC is dealing with difficult cases; ACC is dealing with sensitive cases. What it needs is a Minister and a Government that will support ACC to undertake its work. What it does not need is a Government that is writing letters on behalf of complainants. What it does not need is a former National Party president coming in to throw her weight around in the situation. What ACC needs is to be allowed to get on and do its job. 
It is my judgment that in this case the National Government has let down not only ACC but every single one of those 6700 people who had sensitive claims. It is simply not on for Judith Collins to stand up in this House today and tell New Zealanders that she has accepted Nick Smith’s error of judgment and that it is just a privacy issue. It is not. It is an issue about the ethics of this Government and it is an issue that is focused on ministerial responsibility and what is appropriate for a Minister to do. It is quite simply inappropriate for a Minister to write a letter on ministerial letterhead in this situation. 
This morning Nick Smith said he had done nothing wrong. That is what he said on the radio this morning: he had done nothing wrong. Three hours later suddenly he has done something wrong and he has to apologise for it. What happened in the 3 hours? He got found out. That is what happened in the 3 hours. That is not good enough. That is not a standard of behaviour that we New Zealanders should expect from a Minister to say at the start of the day that he has done nothing wrong and then when it emerges that the letter that we have here is on ministerial letterhead suddenly to say “Oh I’ve done something wrong.” That is not on. That is not the standard of behaviour that we would expect from Ministers. 
There are a number of issues here that need to be worked out. As my colleague Andrew Little said in question time earlier today what happened between the meeting in December when it was discovered by ACC that the details had been leaked out and March when suddenly we move into overdrive and the matter has been released by Judith Collins into the public arena? What happened in that period? What were Ministers doing then? What communications did Judith Collins have with Nick Smith during that period? What was understood by the ACC managers? Why were two senior ACC managers sent to a meeting with an ACC complainant if they did not know about the privacy breach at that point? Why would that happen? Most of us have dealt with ACC cases and I have even been an advocate myself prior to being a politician for somebody in an ACC case and I can guarantee you that senior managers do not show up. So why was that Judith Collins? Why did those managers attend that meeting? What did ACC do in the intervening months? These are the kinds of questions that need to be answered in a fully independent inquiry not one undertaken by the Privacy Commissioner where the terms of reference can be narrowed down to be about just the policies and processes of ACC. 
We on this side of the House and New Zealanders right around the country want to have some confidence that this Government is acting in a transparent manner. They want to have some confidence that this Government is actually administering sensitive claims in a way that befits how sensitive they are. I can say on behalf of this side of the House that this has been a debacle on behalf of the Government—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will the Serjeant-at-Arms please deal with that situation. 
A disturbance took place in the gallery and a member of the public was removed. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: These situations that are being dealt with here by ACC are sensitive and they are difficult. New Zealanders need to know that the highest standards are being applied in the management of this. Nick Smith has failed that. He has completely failed his role as a Minister. The Prime Minister needs to take some responsibility for this. 
It is quite clear that this Government is not interested in transparency. We have seen it time and again. We have seen it with the Skycity deal. We have seen it with Radio Live. We have seen it with New Zealand On Air. This Government is not interested in transparency. Well from this time forward when it comes to ACC we on this side of the House will be demanding transparency. New Zealanders deserve accountability. The 6700 people who have had their details leaked deserve some respect from this Minister—not laughing but actually getting to the bottom of what has happened.