Urgent Debates — Accident Compensation Corporation—Release of Personal Information

I have received a letter from Grant Robertson seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the release by the ACC of private details of ACC clients. The release is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The requirement of recent occurrence refers to when the member became aware of the matter rather than when it actually occurred. Given the nature of the matter, I consider it important enough to warrant the immediate attention of the House by way of urgent debate. I therefore call on Ross Robertson—

💬 Grant Robertson: Grant Robertson. Withdraw and apologise!

I withdraw and apologise. I therefore call on Mr Grant Robertson to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

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.

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 6,700 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 6,700 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 6,700 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!

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 6,700 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.

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 6,700 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.

The people I feel very sorry for in this situation are the 6,700 claimants who awoke on Tuesday last week, 13 March, to a Dominion Post front-page story alleging that all sorts of private information had been released to another claimant, wrongly, and alleging all sorts of things. All these people suddenly thought that their information had been put out in the public domain. These people had done nothing wrong. The first thing I knew about the situation was on Tuesday morning when, just like them, I read about it in the Dominion Post. The chief executive found out about it at the same time. He knew on the Friday that there was a query from the Dominion Post, but it was not particularly specific what the query was about.

We have had all these people contacted by ACC individually, and where they have not been able to be phoned they have been written to, to be told what information was actually in that data spreadsheet. It was not full files and it was not full details; it was a data spreadsheet around the appeals that these people had brought. However, they should not have had that happen to them. I do not think anybody in this House should take any pleasure in what was quite clearly an inadvertent mistake by a staff member at ACC. Our staff member at ACC was distraught over what had happened, and I would have thought any person with an ounce of decency who had received that information would immediately give it back to ACC and alert it to the situation. Or, if they were so worried about the privacy provisions, provisos, and policies of ACC, then they could give the information to the Privacy Commissioner along with a complaint. However, that did not happen.

ACC undertook a review of the situation for me and a report, and that report was released not only to the media but also to the public on ACC’s website this last Friday. By the end of a few days the information was out. I now understand that the person who had the information—a Miss Pullar—refutes the contents of the report, and of course she can take whatever action she likes. But I would say this: anybody with a scrap of decency would have given that information back. I cannot believe that anybody who had it would not do that. I do not care what the excuses are. I do not care what the excuses are about what happened in her case or whatever. At the end of the day, mistakes happen. Mistakes are also made by MPs. I am not going to stand up here and defend a letter written by my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I am not going to defend it. He has already said it was an error of judgment and that he should not have done it. We understand that.

At the end of the day, though, there is a genuine concern now over the privacy provisions of ACC. I am personally—not only as the Minister, but personally—concerned that people are worried about this, and I think we need to deal with that issue. The Privacy Commissioner was brought in on Tuesday, as soon as the situation was known, and she is working on terms of reference with ACC to go into everything about this.

💬 Andrew Little: It was known in December.

The member says: “Oh, they knew about it.” No, they did not. They did not know about this one. They were told in the meeting, and according to the report—and I wish that member would read the report and stop trying to make fun out of this situation—they were told that there was information that was alluded to in a meeting, but not actually what was released or where it was. I think that is a situation that should have been followed up better after that meeting on 1 December, and the report from ACC admits that. They should have escalated it further up the scale in terms of ACC to more senior management. In my opinion, if ACC had these threats made to it, then it should have instantly referred them to the New Zealand Police, which is the action that I would take in those circumstances.

The fact is that ACC over the years apparently gets threats all the time. This is not acceptable. Those staff at ACC work very, very hard to do a great job for the vast majority of the 1.6 million claimants whom they deal with each year—1.6 million claims each year. That is what they deal with. The fact is that sometimes ACC is going to get people who will not accept what it is trying to do. It is absolutely right that if people do not accept ACC’s decisions, they can have meetings. They can have meetings with particular managers, they can have appeals, and they can do all sorts of things. But at the end of the day, in my opinion, the ACC staff are trying to do their very best, and the last thing that ACC needs to do is what has now happened. ACC has now had to put huge numbers of resources and staff on to contacting every single one of those 6,700 people. That is the right thing to do. However, if that information had been given back straight away, it would not be necessary. Also, all of those claimants should not have had to go through that worry.

The only good thing that I can see out of all this is that there will be a full and thorough review of ACC’s privacy provisions, what policies it has, and what it has been doing.

💬 Andrew Little: Who’s going to investigate Nick Smith’s actions?

This will go through all of these actions. The New Zealand Police has been brought in by ACC, and I have to say—that member keeps asking what is going to happen on various things—I actually happen to think that the independence of the Privacy Commissioner and the New Zealand Police is, frankly, above reproach and should be above reproach in this Parliament. I am surprised that that member does not seem to think that either of those organisations, as statutorily independent from Parliament, should be able to actually conduct their inquiries.

I would say to that member who asked the questions that if he actually has any information, then why does he not make it available to the Privacy Commissioner? Why does he not make it available? If he thinks there is anything that should be taken further, why does he not front up with it instead of just sitting there making baseless allegations?

I am surprised that the deputy leader of the Labour Party, who has resumed his seat, should allude to asking what I knew. I am happy to tell them what I knew. I found out on Tuesday that there was a situation. I took action, as a Minister should do in those circumstances. I asked ACC to sort this out, to find out what was going on, to report, and to make that report public, because I did not want anything being hidden from the public. And I do not think any person in my situation would have done anything other than that. We had 6,700 claimants whose privacy had been breached—yes. Was it done knowingly? No, not by the person from ACC. Was it breached by someone else? I think so. However, the Privacy Commissioner will no doubt look at that too. I would say to anybody that if there is any information that they have relating to this matter that they think will actually help the Privacy Commissioner in her deliberations and her report, then I urge them to bring this information to her. If they send me any information, I will instantly send it on to ACC or the Privacy Commissioner or both, as I see fit. Any information on ACC sent to me is sent straight away to ACC, which is what I think should happen. If questions have come out about various things, that is what happens.

So in terms of where we go to from here, I think we should all be looking at the privacy issues of ACC, because it has such sensitive information, and because it has so much information on so many people. But I am also aware that technology consistently changes and that there are ways in which we need to be able to address that. I can say that the next step that ACC is instantly taking is to set up its own privacy team. It has established a dedicated 0800 number and a team of specialist staff to respond to questions following what has happened. It is putting out a press release today about that, and I can tell the House that the contact number for this is 0800 745 254. This information will, of course, be available on the ACC website.

This is not something that the ACC staff members wanted to happen, but it is not something that has not happened in the past. It certainly happened under other Governments, and if the members really wanted me to talk about that, I could. But the fact is—

💬 Michael Woodhouse: Go on.

Well, no, I am not going to go on about it, unless they want me to—really want me to—because at the end of the day this is actually not a fun matter. This is a very serious matter. I am very concerned that people have been put to a dreadful amount of stress and strain, plus ACC has been upended in terms of having case managers come off their work to sit and ring people and let them know what is going on, which is the only thing they could do in the circumstances, in my opinion. I am pleased that the new chief executive fronted up straight away on Tuesday once he realised what had happened and took responsibility for it, and set in train the steps that need to be taken to be able to have this matter resolved, so that people can once again have confidence in the ACC privacy systems.

I will say to members too, though, that many people who have worked in these sorts of areas—either in law, as I have myself, or as members of Parliament—will know that we come across some people who are incredibly focused on their issues. They are so focused that they can see conspiracies everywhere and they do not accept that sometimes decisions are going to be made that they find difficult to live with. OK, maybe some of these decisions are the wrong decisions, but the fact is that sometimes someone has to make a decision, then it can be appealed or efforts can be made to overturn that decision. There is nothing wrong with that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people saying: “I want to appeal. I want to speak to senior managers. I want to do these things.” There is nothing wrong with that, at all. But when one receives private information that is clearly not one’s own—clearly not one’s own—it is absolutely wrong to not return that straight away or destroy it. Or they could advise, or send it through to, the Privacy Commissioner.

As I say, with all the talk that has been going on today, if anyone has any information I would like them to please send it to the Privacy Commissioner. My view is very clear. The Privacy Commissioner has wide-ranging powers. The terms of reference, I suggest, of any report or inquiry should be as wide as possible so that people can be given confidence in the system.

In terms of the police matter, of course, I cannot comment on that, because these matters are with the police, and it would be wrong for anyone in this Parliament to try to comment on matters that are with the police.

In essence, this is a difficult situation. I think ACC has fronted up to it properly and it has admitted fault. It is putting in steps, measures, to try to deal with this and to alleviate the distress of the 6,700 claimants who have been treated so badly—so badly—but it is also looking at how this happened, how it can prevent a repeat of it, and how it can give confidence to people in the ACC system.

I think I might begin where the Minister for ACC left off. Certainly it is true that ACC has now fronted up and admitted fault, but it has taken it some 3 months to do so, and I think that that alone suggests a fundamental lapse in process on ACC’s part.

ACC claimants represent a wide range of people—you know, someone who has perhaps injured an elbow through to someone who has experienced very severe disability as a result of an accident, or, indeed, mental harm as a result of sexual abuse or rape. Each of those people relies on ACC for professionalism and relies on its trustworthiness over their information. For each of those people, regardless of whether their injury has been small with minor consequences or a major injury with really dramatic consequences for a person’s life, that trustworthiness of ACC is now absolutely under question, and that is something we cannot tolerate. We must, therefore, have an independent inquiry with a view to actually returning ACC to the position it should be in as a trustworthy agent—the friend—of those who have been injured.

It is an institution with a very proud history. It represents a social contract between the State and New Zealanders, who gave up something in order to have ACC. We gave up the right to sue and formed that social contract with the State, and in return, New Zealanders were guaranteed the Woodhouse principles: a no-fault scheme, universal access, full rehabilitation, administrative efficiency, and the rest of it. It is a scheme that the rest of the world has come to envy. They come to New Zealand to have a look and see how it works, and wish that they could emulate our system. We, sadly, have allowed it to atrophy.

In particular, under this Government we have seen a change to ACC: the adoption of what I call a culture of disentitlement, in which the good people who are working in ACC are gradually being squeezed out by requirements that come down from on high for a culture in which claimants are seen as the enemy and in which the purpose of interaction with claimants seems to be to disentitle them from rehabilitation and compensation. What we need desperately for ACC is to return it to those Woodhouse principles—to return it to a culture of public service.

This whole episode, starting with the breach of privacy—this extraordinary breach of privacy of some 9,000 instances, and 6,700 people affected—that began, I guess, in August of last year with the leaking of this spreadsheet with these people on it, represents an extraordinary breach of the social contract that New Zealanders have with ACC. There are some questions that emerge from that. Grant Robertson has referred to a few of them, and I will refer to a few others. Why, for example, was this information all on a spreadsheet? What was the purpose of the information being held? Why did that staff member have it? It is a piece of information that is curiously absent from the discussion to date, and I hope that will be addressed by the Privacy Commissioner.

Further, why, when ACC has, I have to say, a track record of previous privacy breaches—and the Minister has referred to them—had the organisation not taken the basic steps required to better protect the data that it was holding about people? Why, for example, was this information not encrypted? Why was it that names and client details were not disaggregated so that privacy could not be breached? Another question that emerges for me is why it is that we have not heard about what has happened about the, I think, 45 breaches of good process that Ms Pullar and Ms Boag brought to the attention of ACC’s senior management. Why have we not heard what has occurred about those breaches of good process? That is yet another example that occurs to me.

I freely admit that I have said to some journalists that I am actually quite pleased that this has happened to a National Party insider. I feel sorry for Ms Boag and Ms Pullar, certainly, but I am pleased about it because, actually, this routine breach of process is something that many ACC claimants experience as a matter of course and it is entirely minimised by the Government.

Two senior managers from ACC met with them, and I agree with Grant Robertson that there are some important questions about that. They now claim that Ms Pullar and Ms Boag effectively attempted to blackmail ACC—a claim that is denied by Ms Pullar and Ms Boag. Another question that occurs to me is, if that is what ACC believes, why on earth did it not complain to the police at that time? Instead, we see that a conciliatory letter was sent to Ms Boag. Well, that is not really credible, is it? Secondly, here we have two senior managers becoming aware of this gross invasion of privacy, this gross breach of trust on the part of the organisation, and yet we are asked to believe that those two senior managers did not bring that to the attention of their chief executive officer, their board, or their Minister. Well, I have worked in the Public Service in a senior capacity and I would have to say that I find that entirely unbelievable. It is astonishing that those people were not brought into the loop when such an extraordinary risk to the organisation and its clients was brought to light. So there are some very important questions.

Since the beginning of last week I have had literally hundreds of people calling my office and emailing my office with their very deep concerns about breach of privacy, in some cases relating their stories—the stories of the harm that caused them to be having their interaction with ACC in the first place. It has been an absolutely harrowing experience for them, and yet what we have heard from them is that in the calls they have had from ACC staff to tell them they were on the spreadsheet, in those interactions they have felt not listened to, they have felt that ACC has minimised their concerns and not taken them seriously, and they have felt that, in fact, the error has been compounded.

I particularly draw the House’s attention to the impact of that on sensitive claimants for whom the very fact that they were on this list comprises an extraordinary breach of their privacy. Consider for a moment those who did not get the call—who did not get the call from ACC. How are they supposed to feel? What they have learnt is that their information, the fact of their sensitive claim, is not being held secure by ACC. It could be breached at any time. Further, we have learnt that the facts about sensitive claims are not held in this extraordinarily secure way within the sensitive claims unit; actually, they are routinely available to a very wide range of people within ACC.

So I am very, very supportive indeed of the Privacy Commissioner’s inquiry. There are very many issues that need to be addressed: the breach of privacy in the first place, the lack of management of the breach by ACC, and then the poor way in which ACC has gone about trying to fix the breach. But I take issue with the Minister’s answers to my questions today. The matters related to the previous Minister for ACC, the Hon Nick Smith, will not be considered by the Privacy Commissioner in her inquiry; they cannot possibly be found to be within scope. They will not be addressed by that inquiry, and we need a properly independent inquiry to address those issues. In 1999 Deputy Speaker Ian Revell resigned over the improper use of the Deputy Speaker’s letterhead. If Nick Smith were the Minister today, I would say he ought to be sacked. Right now, he needs to be stood down while this matter is under investigation. He is not a junior Minister; he is a senior, experienced Minister and this is an absolutely fundamental breach of the Cabinet Manual and ministerial responsibility. This entire thing is a circus and requires a fully independent investigation. I called on the Auditor-General’s office earlier today to undertake that inquiry.

Over a matter of a few days it has become crystal clear to New Zealand First and the people of this country that this is a Government of National Party people, by National Party people, for National Party people, and the Privacy Commissioner conducting the review will not get at the facts, because this has long gone past a matter of privacy or confidentiality.

An unseemly controversy has exploded into the light of day with all the usual National Party suspects: Nick Smith, John Key, and Michelle Boag—always Michelle Boag, the former National Party president put in all sorts of Government-appointed jobs: the Broadcasting Commission; you name it; the whole lot. And blow me down, who comes as the confidante at court to help this woman? It is Michelle Boag. There they are with their fingerprints, their footprints, and their DNA all over it. And there is the victim, by some strange coincidence a National Party activist and apparatchik, Bronwyn Pullar, who tried to get some kind of deal from ACC. All of a sudden they have a marvellous memory on the part of Michelle Boag as to what was not said. But not much has been told to us about what was said at the meeting—just what was not said. That has got a ring to it, if you are conducting any sort of investigative work, that there is something amiss here.

Nick Smith, you know, wrote a letter of support for the victim to ACC. I wonder how many other ACC people have written to him over the years when he was the Minister, asking him to do something about what they would think was their plight—being unfairly treated by this outfit that is called ACC. You might say “Well, what is wrong with that?”. And the answer is nothing, if you are a member of Parliament, or a local body councillor, or a lawyer, or somebody who is a social worker. But what is wrong is that he was the Minister for ACC. And is Mr Key paying any attention as to how serious this is? Oh no, one rule for the rest of the politicians in this House, and a different rule for the so-called noblesse oblige—although they have not got any characteristics of nobility. One rule for the noblesse oblige and a different rule for everybody else. They think themselves to be a special class above the law and above ordinary scrutiny. This means that the Minister for ACC leaned on ACC, to push the case of another National Party member to get some payments. And just in case that was not enough, they pulled out a former president of the National Party, just to give it a run to see what greater pressure they could exert, as well.

💬 Hon Member: Disgusting.

It is disgusting, but it is typical.

Who knows, there may have been some merit in the case of Ms Pullar, but it was not Nick Smith’s place to push this case. He has been around a long time. You can tell that by looking at him. He did not arrive here yesterday—

💬 Paul Goldsmith: Not as long as you.

We all know that. We all know that. What a rapier-like wit that man from Epsom has got. What a rapier-like wit. I might have been around here longer than Nick Smith, but it does not look like it, does it—not when you look at Nick? Here is the point: there may have been some merit in Ms Pullar’s case, but it was not Nick Smith’s place to push her issue. It was a distinct conflict of interest. It was the case of a National Cabinet Minister doing a favour for a member, and a formerly highly placed member, of his own political party. But that has got a ring about it, has it not: the cronyism, the sleaze, and the jobs for the boys—and the girls. In every appointment, line your own people up—position them. It was the case of a National Minister doing a favour for a member of his own political party. For this he should have been sacked immediately from Cabinet when it was known by Mr Key that he had done that.

It is no use coming along and saying “I made a serious error of judgment.” Where is the accountability? Where is the ministerial responsibility? If it was on that basis, half the Cabinet would be gone tomorrow, because they are making serious errors of judgment every day. They are too inexperienced. Look at them. They have been here only 5 minutes, and by some raffle they have got themselves a Cabinet post. I know that there are far more capable guys on the backbench, but apparently they have not been browning enough for the guys at the top. I know that there are more capable guys in the back here, but they have not been chosen because they are not all total yes-men like the one who is hiding behind that white paper over there right now. It was a distinct conflict of interest, doing a favour for one of his mates in his party. Mr Smith should be sacked now that that detail is out, and that is not going to be what the Privacy Commissioner is charged with finding—because it is not a privacy matter now; it is a separate political matter of a grave breach of the Cabinet Manual. He should be gone, and that is the fact of this matter here now.

But the plot thickens. It turns out that John Key, the Prime Minister, knew the National Party activist. He talked to her on not one occasion but a number of times, apparently—a number of times, apparently. And so did the former National Party president Michelle Boag. So this is the case: in July 2011 Nick Smith wrote a reference letter for Bronwyn Pullar, a former National Party official, whilst he was Minister for ACC. But here is the real point: he was saying that a critical aspect of ACC’s judgment must have been wrong, because in his opinion, although he is not a medical doctor, she was in every way sound and fit before the accident, and that there was no cause for her current condition other than the accident. He was putting his reputation on the line as Dr Smith on ministerial letterhead, just to make sure that people did not think there was a lot—because there are a lot of Dr Smiths around in this country. They wanted to make sure they got the real Dr Smith, the Minister for ACC.

This letter was used to support Ms Pullar’s case for ACC compensation after a cycling accident. In December 2011 Ms Pullar held a meeting with ACC, at which her friend former National Party president Michelle Boag was her support person. That is amazing, is it not? You would not go into your local town and get a lawyer, someone qualified, of course. No, no, you get the former National Party apparatchik and president Michelle Boag—

💬 Andrew Little: The well-known social worker.

—the well-known social worker, who trucked into this Parliament two leaders, first Don Brash and then John Key, from overseas to depose a guy called Neeson, backstabbing him in his west Auckland electorate, to get the job in the first place. Michelle organised that. So she is no bit player. Oh no, she is the person behind the whole scheme in the first place.

By the way, Ms Pullar was accidentally sent information about 6,700 other ACC claimants. Well, that is a privacy matter, but it has gone a long way beyond that. And we do not want to have another snow job from the National Party—another snow job from the National Party, where you can say “Well, this commissioner who was charged with limited terms of reference has made this decision about confidentiality, but no one addressed the question of the propriety of the Hon Dr Nick Smith being involved.” That data that was leaked identified some as making sensitive claims for injuries, resulting from rape or other forms of sexual assault. So there it is: a scandal from within the Government, caused by the Government that holds itself up as being cleaner than the driven snow. It is always cleaner than driven snow. All its mates downtown in the commercial market know that is not true, of course, but it always poses as being that. It is a shabby little case involving blackmail, sex, and a Minister with a conflict of interest, and he should go now.

This has been a massive breach of privacy and I have full confidence that the Privacy Commissioner will thoroughly investigate that aspect of this matter and will report fully on that aspect of this matter, and we can have confidence that that will happen. This suggests a systemic breakdown within the ACC that may well lead to significant further repercussions for ACC, and I have confidence the Privacy Commissioner will investigate that fully. What I do not have confidence in is the fact that the Government is taking this seriously, when a Minister in this Cabinet has shown such a lack of judgment—the Minister for ACC—that they were willing to write a letter of support for an individual ACC claimant. Nick Smith showed not only a lack of judgment; it was completely appropriate. He should resign from his post as a Minister, and if he does not resign, John Key should sack him. John Key promised that he was going to raise the bar for ministerial accountability, and what he had this morning was Nick Smith saying that he did not do anything wrong. This is what Nick Smith said this morning before he was caught: “Ministers still have friends and providing there is no inappropriate influence, it is quite appropriate for them to provide information or evidence for medical assessment, and other legal processes.”

That is from the Minister for ACC. He was providing advice and support to someone to support their ACC claim, and he did not think that was inappropriate. Then he turned round and said that it was an error of judgment, particularly putting the letter on ministerial letterhead. Ministerial letterhead is not the issue. It would not have mattered if he had written it on a napkin. It was inappropriate for Nick Smith as the Minister for ACC to be going in to bat for an individual ACC claimant. That is what took place here, and Nick Smith should resign as a Minister. He does not have the judgment to be a Minister, and if he does not resign, then John Key should sack him.

But there was another aspect of this issue that is equally disturbing, and that is the role of the former National Party President Michelle Boag. It is an issue that amounts to, if allegations are correct, one of blackmail, one of a claimant using information aided and abetted by the former National Party president and trying to blackmail the ACC. This is an incredibly serious issue. This claimant was given information by accident, and we should get to the bottom of how that happened, but they then tried to use that information, supported by the former National Party president. And with the full knowledge that they had a letter of endorsement from Nick Smith, the former Minister for ACC, in their back pocket, they effectively tried to blackmail the ACC, and that is not good enough. That should be fully investigated. That is not something this Government should have its paw prints all over; this is something that the Government needs somebody independent to fully investigate.

This is an incredibly serious matter. It is a question of whether or not the ACC was blackmailed or whether somebody tried to blackmail the ACC using information they were not supposed to have. They were not supposed to have that information, and the National Party’s fingerprints are all over it. Nick Smith is tangentially involved in this because he had supported that very ACC claimant. He had written a letter claiming that to the best of his knowledge they did not have any health or other conditions that would have compromised their capacity to work prior to the accident, and in fact he provided that information so that there could be a comparative assessment of that person’s current health. There only can be a comparative assessment of that person’s current health for what other purpose than an ACC claim, and this was written on the ministerial letterhead of the Minister for ACC. It would not matter, though, whether it was on ministerial letterhead at all; it was still the Minister for ACC. Does Nick Smith seriously have such bad judgment that he thinks that if he had written it on a plain piece of paper, the people at ACC who got it would not know that the person who had written it was the Minister to whom they were accountable?

💬 Andrew Little: He should go.

This Minister should go. If he does not resign, the Prime Minister should sack him. Nick Smith does not have the judgment to be a Minister in Government. John Key said he was going to raise the bar for ministerial accountability. Well, now it is time for him to put up or shut up. If Nick Smith does not resign, John Key should sack him.

Sometimes people make mistakes. ACC is a very large corporation, dealing with about 1.8 million claims a year and billions of dollars of taxpayers’ and levy payers’ money. I cannot imagine the sheer horror that must have been experienced by the ACC staff member on the realisation that he or she had inadvertently emailed a document to a person who did not have any right to have the document. I am actually a bit surprised by the lack of empathy from the deputy leader of the Labour Party about this, the so-called shadow Minister for Bureaucrats. In his long call, he made very little, if any, mention about the staff member concerned. But I have some compassion for that staff member. I have worked for ACC; it is a big, complex organisation. There are many balls in the air being juggled—a bit like being a senior whip, I suppose—and sometimes a ball is dropped. But that is not why nearly 9,000 people are upset and disappointed that potentially private information has been disclosed. They are upset and disappointed because the person to whom that information was sent—in an email that probably had a trailer on it that said “Information contained in this, if it is not for the recipient, should not be used and should be sent back to the sender”; That is a pretty standard sort of trailer that gets put on every single email, and according to the information that has so far been disclosed, that did not happen. There will be a police investigation, and there will be a Privacy Commissioner investigation, but to me that lies at the heart of why those 9,000 people are now going through the stress and upset that they are.

Mr Robertson talked about ACC performance—that this is an issue about performance. Mr Hague also said that this was an issue about ACC performance, and I absolutely agree with him. In the 3½ years since I have been in this House the shadow spokespeople for ACC—Maryan Street, Chris Hipkins, and now Andrew Little—have said an awful lot about ACC, but the one thing they have not said is the thing that the public have been dying to hear, and that is an apology; an apology for the appalling mess that was left by them when they left office, for their contribution to $7.2 billion of financial deficit that was left as a legacy by a softening Labour Government that saw ACC as a social cash cow for people in the grey area between accident and medical. I have direct knowledge of that.

I heard Mr Hague, in his call, talk about a culture of disentitlement. What I would suggest is that this is about a culture of more accurate entitlement according to the Woodhouse principles, which he espoused. I can give him an absolute assurance that those principles remain sound and that this Government is committed to them. But it has simply got to an unacceptable level, and the level of acceptance of claims on ACC in dubious circumstances was simply not able to be continued. The unfunded liability that this Government was left with, the billions of dollars of levies—extra—that had to be paid by levy payers in this country, which, thankfully, this Government has turned round, is what it is about in terms of ACC performance, and if members want to have an urgent debate, I would suggest that that is really what this is about. The Labour Opposition continues—

💬 Andrew Little: Tell us about Nick Smith.

Nick Smith has very little to do with the actions of Bronwyn Pullar. I feel very sorry for that claimant. I have had a number of people, thanks to Labour members in Dunedin sending all their ACC clients to the National office in Dunedin, and based on the experience I have had with them, they have had very good outcomes with an excellent ACC team down there on extremely difficult issues. But let us be very clear about what this is about. This is about the actions of a member of the public exploiting a mistake made by an ACC officer. The questions raised by Mr Hague in question time today do a disservice to the Privacy Commissioner and her independence. I have every confidence that she will get to the bottom of what has happened and that some very good outcomes will come from it. But this is about ACC performance, and we are still waiting for the “sorry” from Labour.

I would just like to follow on from my colleague Michael Woodhouse with regard to this matter. I think everybody in our community, and especially in this Parliament, understands the pressures that ACC has in the work that it does. It is not an easy organisation to run, and it is not easy work for those within ACC to undertake. They have a very vital role in our community. Many years ago this Parliament made a decision on how it would deal with accidents and injury, and ACC was born out of that. The Green Party member mentioned the Woodhouse principles, and my colleague just mentioned the fundamental basis of ACC. In doing that complex job, there will sometimes be mistakes made. I am sure that those involved would like to have their time again and not make those mistakes, but at the end of the day things like that have happened and do happen, and then it is up to, really, this Parliament and also the corporation to deal with those mistakes. The mistake has translated into a bigger result than I guess it could have been if the email was returned and no action was taken by the recipient. But at the end of the day we are in this position now, and I think everybody recognises the pressure that will be on ACC in this regard.

The Minister has made it quite clear that there will be a review, and that the review process will look at ways forward, and I think it is important for this House to focus on that. We want to be able to help ACC as much as possible. In any organisation there is learning within, and development of, that organisation, and sometimes through the mistakes that are made an organisation or individuals can learn and grow. Through this process I am sure there will be some suggestions made, and those suggestions will be for the best interests of the corporation and all those individuals who may be claimants or may be working within the corporation. There will be claimants who will feel that this information should not have been released or that this issue should not have got to this stage of the process, in the sense that it is becoming a very public issue for them. Our thoughts are with those people, because it is their personal information and they will be very guarded about it, and rightly so.

But it is a situation that has arisen. It is a situation that many people involved within the corporation, and also those individuals who may have had their cases exposed in the public arena, would wish had not happened. That is something that we cannot change in this House. But we can look forward, and we can look at ways we can deliver better services and a better corporation going forward. I think that is the focus of what we need to do here today and looking forward through this situation. A corporation like ACC has to deal with over a million cases a year, which is a big drain on any organisation, and that will stretch the ability of any individual or corporation to be able to deliver perfect services all the time. That is something that I think we need to be mindful of in the sense of the proportionality of what ACC deals with. It is a very big organisation, and it deals with very sensitive and individual issues and information. Nobody wants a situation to arise where that personal information gets into the public arena. It is very unfortunate that that may happen, but in some cases, as in this case, that is the unfortunate result. We need to be aware of that and look forward to what we can do to make sure that these situations do not arise in the future. Also, we need to be aware of, and have regard for, those who may have been affected during this situation.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the speaking list for the urgent debate the next call is set down as a 5-minute call for the Māori Party, and I am aware that the Māori Party has not taken a call in the debate. I therefore seek leave for us to move on to the next call on the list, which is a Labour call—a 10-minute call—and if the Māori Party chooses to take its call subsequently, it can have its 5-minute call then.

According to the order of debate set out when the urgent debate is called by the Labour Party, the Māori Party would have its call at slot No. 5, and therefore that has already passed, albeit that the order of calls remains at the Speaker’s discretion. So I do not think there is actually any need to seek leave for Labour to take its 10-minute call now.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am bound to give a 5-minute call for the next one, because it has not taken place. So leave has been sought. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.

The last two speakers from the Government side have tried to minimise this issue. This is not a small issue. And it is not about a mistake by one manager inside ACC mistakenly sending information to another person.

Let us start at the beginning. This is about ACC, one of the most important institutions in New Zealand, revered around the world because of what it does. It is absolutely essential to the health of our community, so that when people do have accidents and get injured they can have a quick recovery without having to worry and stress about it. But absolutely crucial to the good functioning of ACC and its relationship with the community and this country is the very high trust that is placed in it by people when they make claims. We all do it, whether it is for a sprained thumb or whether it is for something more serious. We have to provide information to ACC through our medical advisers—through our doctors. Trusting ACC is absolutely essential, and that is what is at stake here.

Information on 6,752 claimants was wrongly and mistakenly sent to a person who simply should not have had it. The Minister for ACC is right, and I support her stance when she says that that person has acted wrongly—she has. Let us put that aside for now. But let us also understand this: I—like, no doubt, many MPs—have been getting information from people who have had their phone call, or got their letter, and they are being told different information from what appears in the report that went to the Minister last Friday. They say that it was not just their names, it was not just their numbers, it was not just the status of their reviews; other information has been disclosed as well. We need to have that clarified. That is not a matter for the Privacy Commissioner; that is a matter for a proper independent inquiry into what has gone wrong.

The other issue—and the very serious issue that lies at the heart of this and the privacy issues—is what has happened to those 131 people who have made sensitive claims. They make those claims because they are victims of sexual abuse. They make those claims because they suffer mental injury as a result. That is how serious those claims are. When I talk about the trust that people must place in ACC, there could not be people who need to place more trust—whom we rely on to place the utmost trust—in ACC than those who make sensitive claims to the sensitive claims unit. The ACC website says to those who make sensitive claims that their information will be seen by only the small number of people who work in the sensitive claims unit and, perhaps, an independent assessor. But what we have seen in this case is that somebody outside the sensitive claims unit has access to that information. In fact, the report to the Minister on Friday said it was a spreadsheet that was circulated to all ACC managers. How many is that? How many hundreds of people are getting access to information that ACC says, to those making sensitive claims, that only a small number of people will see? That is a crucial issue. The Privacy Commissioner might deal with that, but he or she will not deal with the myriad of other issues that arise in this particular case.

What has happened? I accept what today’s Minister for ACC has said. We know that with the management of data today, there is so much of it, and it is easy to make a mistake. We know that. We understand that. But it is what happened here in this particular case that matters. There are real questions that need to be answered. Looking at the disclosure in the first place, why was a person—a manager in the recovered persons unit, or whatever that one is called—handling this spreadsheet and all of this information in the first place? Why did they have it? We know that that was disclosed in August 2011. Why was the sensitive claims information included in that spreadsheet? What is the assurance that has been given to those people now to give them some comfort and security?

The next piece of information we know is that there was a meeting in December that involved two senior managers from ACC, who say that they did not know there had been a privacy breach up until that time; there was Bronwyn Pullar, the person who had received the information and had a long-time grievance against ACC; and there was the former National Party president Michelle Boag, who is not well known in ACC circles as far as I am concerned. I have done a bit of ACC advocacy work. I have not seen Michelle Boag’s name on the list of advocates and others who have represented people in ACC. How is it that in an ACC system where many people struggle to get a meeting with their case manager, Bronwyn Pullar can get a meeting with two senior managers from ACC? That gap has not been filled. That question is not answered in the report that went to the Minister on Friday. We just do not know, but I smell a rat, and it is a big one and it is a stinky one.

We need to know what it is that prompted ACC to send two senior managers to meet with Bronwyn Pullar, an aggrieved claimant, and a former National Party president, Michelle Boag. There is more to this than meets the eye, and we need to know what it is. The Privacy Commissioner will not answer that question, but we need to know what was really going on. What was discussed at that meeting? We are now getting conflicting information. The report to the Minister says one thing, Bronwyn Pullar says another, and we have the letter from Michelle Boag, who remembers some things but not others. What happened at that meeting? That is not a matter for the Privacy Commissioner, but it would be a matter for a proper independent inquiry, which should take place, and which the Minister has in her power to set up and get under way.

We then see that nothing happened for 3 months. A letter was written—that is right. A manager who was at the December meeting sent a letter, and nothing else happened for more than 3 months. This is the institution that we must trust so much, that every New Zealander—not just the 1.7 million claimants each year, but every New Zealander—must trust. Here was a manager of ACC who knew that there had been a breach of privacy—they say they did not know the extent of it, but they knew there had been a breach of privacy—and very little was done. That is not good enough, and we need to know why it was not.

Was it the presence of Michelle Boag that made them afraid to take further action? Was it the fact that they now would have known that this woman Bronwyn Pullar was a National Party activist? Was it because they then saw that there was a letter from then Minister for ACC, Nick Smith, and they were too afraid to act—frozen in the headlights? That is what happens. When Ministers write letters on their letterhead, using their ministerial titles, on behalf of individuals, going into the bureaucracy of which they are part, they know the effect that that is meant to have. It is meant to have a chilling effect. It is meant to make senior officials freeze in the headlights, and I suspect that that is what happened in this case. We need to know the answers, because we are not getting them. We did not get them in the ministerial report on Friday, we did not get them in the answers to Parliament today, and we are entitled to have them for the confidence of all New Zealand in this most important of institutions.

We then go to the role of the former Minister for ACC. This current Minister for ACC is clearly responsible, and I accept that she was not to blame, but the former Minister is not just responsible, but he is to blame as well. What on earth was that Minister doing using the full power of his office and his title to advocate for a single person within the department for which he was responsible? That is unheard of. That is unheard of. Not even Bob Semple went that far, and that was a long time ago. Nick Smith wrote a letter, and said in it that he was not trying to influence ACC, but then he put the argument that was all about influencing the ACC decision. That is how disingenuous this Minister was. It is such a flagrant breach—such a flagrant breach—of the Minister’s duties and responsibilities, and of the standards of conduct we are entitled to expect of a Minister, that that Minister must go. He must go from this Cabinet.

If John Key is serious, and if he as a Prime Minister expects the nation to take him and what he says about the conduct and the standard of conduct of Ministers seriously, then he must see to it that Nick Smith is sent out of Cabinet, because we cannot trust him any more. We cannot trust him not to abuse his position. We cannot trust him not to use his office to curry favour with whatever National Party activist asks for it next. What other favours has he given Bronwyn Pullar? Who knows? That is not a matter for the Privacy Commissioner, but that is a matter for a proper inquiry that is about giving integrity back to this Cabinet, to this administration, and to this Prime Minister. You do not start a letter off “To whom it may concern,” and claim it was addressed to the medical adviser. That was a letter intended to carry weight, intended to carry influence, and intended to change the ACC decision that had been made. It was improper process and improper procedure.

The Privacy Commissioner’s inquiry is not enough. It is a good start for the privacy issues concerned, but it is about how this happened. What was the environment that was happening here? What was the National Party involvement here? A lot of National Party personalities seem to have been tied up in it. We need to know. We need to know about the conduct of Nick Smith. We need to know about the conduct of Michelle Boag. We need to know about the conduct of the director of ACC, who so far remains nameless, and about what he knew and why he did not disclose that to the chief executive—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

Firstly, let me acknowledge the original incident, as it has unravelled in this Chamber and across the media over recent days, and reiterate what Minister Collins said. I think, as do most members, that the release, accidental or otherwise, of the information was unacceptable, unsatisfactory, and simply not good enough. Quite simply—

💬 Andrew Little: Well, we’ve got that. [Interruption]

Yes, members, but let us just acknowledge that, because there is some politicisation happening here, which is starting to go away from the core issue.

💬 Andrew Little: It started with the National Party.

The previous speaker made his points, and I will start to make mine. But I reiterate that it is simply not good enough.

I will come to a point about what has happened since these revelations came to the attention of the Minister in charge, and how that has been reacted to—managed. That is not to say that other issues may not have arisen, as some members have been speaking of, about what else has been going on. But I do note, and I am very cautious and I do urge other members to note, that there is one investigation, or possibly two investigations, going on here about different parts of this scenario, if you want. As to the paper that was released on Friday, the Minister announced the papers, and ACC is cooperating fully with the Privacy Commissioner to discover, to learn, to share, to find out how it happened, and maybe why it happened. The terms of reference are still being worked on, I understand. The reaction to what was an unacceptable event—I would like to think an accidental unacceptable event—with consequences that we are discussing now has been addressed. I think we really do need to separate those issues, because the police are possibly also investigating some of the other issues in this space, which the other member was talking about.

That is fine, but let us just kind of reiterate, if you want, what is going on. The key issues in events like this are to understand and acknowledge what has happened, and try to learn how it happened—intentional or otherwise—and about problems or gaps in a system. They may have been there for many years. We just do not know, actually; we are yet to find out. And then there are some of the other issues that are clouding this space right at this moment. I have been as surprised as other members about some of the events that seem to have been portrayed out there.

But I will agree with the previous speaker about much of what he says. It is about trust. That is quite right. So to hold, regain, earn that trust is what Minister Collins and ACC, with the Privacy Commissioner, and the inquiry into how this has happened are about. It is all about holding trust. The member is right: New Zealanders do, and do need to—and by and large I think they do—have a large amount of trust in not only the ability of ACC to manage an accident, whatever that may be, and the issues in and around that but also the ability of ACC to fulfil its obligations under its Act over a lifetime. It can be 20 or 25 years. The member did note the need, and I just urge members—they can speak quite laterally, I know—to exercise caution about standing on a ladder of righteousness, or something, around sensitive claims. They are exactly that; they are very, very sensitive. I appreciate that members of Parliament have many issues come across their desks, but let us make sure we treat everything with respect and dignity, regardless of what may or may not have happened to that particular individual and the circumstances, whatever they are, that have put them into a place where their name, their review lodgment date, their client name, their file reference number or their branch identification category, and perhaps a review outcome has been sent—inadvertently, let us just assume for the moment; I am quite sure that is the case, and I certainly hope so—to some other party, and then there is a bit of activity after that, as far as ACC is concerned.

I just want to go back to what has happened subsequent to this. Yes, here we are having this urgent debate in the House and members have raised their points. To be fair, there is a general theme of surprise at this event—this is the ACC’s inadvertent release of information—the need for there to be trust, and then there has been some politics, sure, at the margin, and some other events have come through. I have here some statistics of what ACC has done since. As at last Thursday, when around that time the Minister and everyone became aware of this issue, ACC acknowledged that it needed to contact 6,752 clients whose earlier details may have been sent in one way, shape, or form to the recipient. Let us just leave it there for the moment. ACC has tried, as at last Thursday at 10 o’clock in the morning, to contact 4,457 of them. It has successfully spoken to 2,611 of them, and was unable to communicate with 1,846. That was last Thursday. That is not to dilute in any way, shape, or form what has happened. My point is about the trust that New Zealanders, and I think most of the House, maintain in ACC from the reaction to what has happened here and what system solutions are being put in play to fix it, to remedy it. I acknowledge Minister Collins’ leadership here in putting in place the machinery, if you want, for this to be addressed.

I think we have to be so careful about theories about what might have gone on, and the next layer of what may have gone on, and some connections, and some influence. Yes, some members are able to allege those if they want, but I trust ACC to do the job it is charged to do. On the whole it does a fantastic job. This is certainly a bump in the road, which I do not think the ACC needed or required. New Zealand did not need nor require it, not because of political reasons but simply to maintain trust in such a great and solid entity, which is now in a very strong financial position.

Finally, just pursuant to the rebuilding of trust or the need for people to help engage—and I know that other members have pointed a few things out—I do endorse that any person who believes that their details, basic though they might have been, have been shared inadvertently or their privacy breached via ACC in the particular item we are talking about does call the 0800 number, to engage with and discuss it with ACC. I acknowledge, as that previous member said, that different messages were being sent out. We need to look at that, and I would be interested to hear a bit more about that, if in fact that is what is happening from ACC’s point of view. So if anyone is aware of anyone, or thinks they may just share the 0800 number with them, let us make sure that members are not breaching the trust and the privacy of those people, particularly the sensitive claims part of this—inadvertently, I am sure—as the politics of this thing play out in this House. Thank you.

I have heard some fantastic contributions from this side of the House on this topic of urgent debate. I just do want to reiterate the fact that we have such enormous confidence in the Minister for ACC and her ability to act on this so quickly. Because as the previous speaker, the Hon Craig Foss, has mentioned, the thing that is really central to this is that New Zealanders at large have a confidence in ACC and its ability to deal with an issue like this when it arises. If we think about the number of people who have had their information released in this unfortunate manner, what they need to know straight away is that there is a Minister who takes it seriously, that there is an organisation that is pulling out all of the stops to get on top of the issue, and to not only deal with those who have been directly affected by it but also to take the necessary steps to make sure that this kind of issue cannot occur again.

As we have heard in the House today, the Minister has received a comprehensive report. There will be further information that comes to light with the terms of reference that ACC is working on with the Privacy Commissioner, as it is just really important that they are able to work together on this to progress it. The Minister has received the initial report, as Craig Foss was talking about. We now have a situation where ACC has set up this 0800 number, which people affected are able to ring, and it has a specialist team who are responding to the people who have had their privacy breached, and those respondents are a specialist pair of people who are trained to deal with this type of situation. I am confident that they will be dealing with this most carefully and responsibly. The fact is that there is a press release that has gone out earlier today, which has all the details about it. If there is anyone who is listening to Parliament today who has been directly affected, I would encourage them to contact that specialist team on 0800 745 254. That number is available and being operated from 8.30 in the morning until 5 p.m. This is about a direct process whereby people are able to get the support they need, because it is that confidence in ACC that is really important.

We have seen from the Minister the fact that she is on top of this issue. ACC has acknowledged that it made a mistake, and I think that is the first thing you do, if you handle something badly—to front it and acknowledge the errors that have occurred. Rather than getting into the politics of it, the focus is actually on those people who have been affected. For those constituents who are affected up and down New Zealand, the first priority, rather than squabbling about the politics—which I know is what the other side of the House is always wanting to engage in—is actually to deal with the issue at hand to make sure that those people who have been affected are able to get the support that they need.

The Minister is also happy that ACC has outlined very clearly some changes that need to be put in place, to make sure that this sort of issue does not occur again, and to be able to implement them. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you have heard a lot about this particular issue and the fact that the Minister and ACC are doing what needs to be done to resolve this, so I shall leave it at that.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.