Carmel Sepuloni isn't going to fix ACC

The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is meant to be a no fault no blame system, and was initially designed to help people recover by providing the medical assistance they require. If injuries are long term, ACC is meant to support the disabled person financially with up to 80% of their previous weekly income as compensation.

However ACC no longer meets this brief. Considerable changes have been made over the years to ensure the Ministry makes a substantial profit by declining long-term claimants. They do this by making incorrect determinations and employing corrupt specialists who receive bonuses for misdiagnosing patients, basically because they no longer have any compassion for other people.

It’s not just ACC specialists who’ve got a vested interest in removing injured Kiwis from their books though. The entire organisation is geared to refusing long-term claimants, which usually means injured or disabled people don’t get the care they require. ACC does this primarily by declining claimants and then using incorrect diagnosis. However they also use the legal system to ensure most claimants, particularly those without resources, simply give up.

But that’s not the worst of it. ACC also deters claimants by ensuring that their privacy is breached, which is a further calculated attempt to dissuade Kiwis from making claims.


Today, the Otago Daily Times reported:

The hastily announced independent review into the management of Accident Compensation Corporation data and client information needs to do much more than skim the surface of the organisation’s culture.

Fourteen employees (including two in the Dunedin office) were stood down last week for alleged breaches of privacy.

The allegation from a whistle-blower that some Hamilton call centre staff were sharing details of client’s injuries and making fun of them in a private Snapchat called "ACC whores" was shocking.

This news came hard on the heels of concerns from clients and their advocates about too many staff having access to sensitive claims information, a concern echoed by some staff. Acting chief executive Mike Tully was quick to defend that situation when the concerns were brought to his attention, rather than stand back and reassess whether the way the claims were being handled was truly in the best interests of the claimants. It was not a good look, compounded by the later revelation, the result of a parliamentary question, that 1414 staff have access to sensitive claims.

Should the investigations into the privacy breach allegations confirm the bad behaviour, the temptation will be for the organisation to see those involved as bad apples.

 

Unfortunately the entire organisation is a rotten apple.

Prior to the change in Government, research showed that the claims process discriminates against woman, Māori and Pasifika people. This forced the new Minister, Carmel Sepuloni, to request a briefing about ACC’s dysfunction.

Earlier this year, ACC’s own analysis confirmed that the organisation was racist, sexist and ageist as well as discriminatory against people who are injured at birth. They were also found to be more prejudiced against certain occupations, namely those predominated by women.

Since then nothing has really changed. In fact ACC is still the same sick puppy it always was under the previous National Party Government.

Clearly making jokes about sensitive claims is one thing, but creating an entire Snapchat group called ‘ACC Whores’ so your fellow staff members can laugh about people’s injuries is entirely unacceptable. This all shows that there must be a thorough review of the culture at ACC, and in order to do that, a new Minister is required. Carmel Sepuloni has had long enough to fix what is still a terribly broken system.

Carmel Sepuloni must fix ACC

You may have noticed that the Accident Compensation Corporation, or ACC for short, has been in the news for all the wrong reasons lately. Not only has newish research shown that the claims process discriminates against woman, Māori and Pasifika people, ACC apparently also penalises Kiwis depending on how and when their injuries occur.

It’s another huge mess that the Labour Government, and more specifically ACC Minister Carmel Sepuloni, needs to remedy without delay.

On Monday, RNZ reported:

ACC biased against women, Māori and Pasifika - agency's own analysis shows

Women are less likely to make ACC claims, more likely to be declined when they do, and they receive far less compensation than men, the figures show.

Over the past five years it has become even harder for women - especially Māori and Pasifika women - to get an ACC claim accepted.

The decline rate for women has increased from 2.2 to 2.6 percent. In comparison, the decline rate for men only increased from 1.9 to 2.1 percent.

If women did get cover and were entitled to weekly compensation payments, they got a little over half the rate of men.

Despite women, who make up just over half the population, accessing health care more often than men, men filed 4 percent more claims than women.

The inequities are laid out in a series of briefings, obtained by RNZ under the Official Information Act, from ACC to its Minister Carmel Sepuloni, after the corporation analysed claims data between June 2015 and July 2020.

At least the current Minister is interested enough in ACC’s problems to get a briefing on such matters, which is more than can be said for Michael Woodhouse. The former National Party Minister for ACC would often just ignore the media when they asked questions about ACC. He also made it even more difficult for Kiwis to receive the cover they required.

However what we need to see now isn't more finger wagging, it's some action to clean up ACC.

The scheme's definition of "injury" favoured the types of injuries suffered by men, the ACC briefing said, but women and minorities were also more likely to face bias from health professionals who filed claims on their behalf.

The types of injuries women were more likely to experience in the workplace were less likely to be covered.

This included a lack of cover for cumulative stressors present in 'caring professions' dominated by women such as nursing and teaching, the paper said.

In effect ACC is bigoted against nurses and teachers. It would therefore be highly prudent of the Government to remove these sexist penalties, especially if they want to encourage more people to take up teaching and nursing.

Otago University law lecturer Dawn Duncan, who highlighted these inequities in a study published last year, said the ACC legislation needed overhauling to reflect "a more principle-based system that deals with more complex health problem."

But simply updating some of the cover tests that determine whether a claim is approved would also reduce inequities, she said.

"Those cover have become narrower and some of them are quite out of date. Some of them reflect medical thinking that's now 50 years old."

There you go Minister...there’s already one easy way to reduce the inequalities Dawn Duncan has been kind enough to highlight. No need for a lengthy investigation into what to do, which ACC would likely stuff up anyway. Just rewrite the cover tests so that all injured people are covered.

It’s unlikely that anything will change anytime soon though. The Labour led Government is far too concerned with optics, especially when it comes to sensitive topics such as the ACC. This is a pity because unfortunately the ACC’s inequitable treatment of certain claimants doesn’t end there.

Yesterday, RNZ reported:

ACC law biased against those disabled before injury, agency's analysis reveals

In its fourth briefing paper on how ACC treats "priority populations" to its Minister Carmel Sepuloni, ACC said people left disabled by injury are treated far better and paid more compensation by ACC than those who are born disabled or become so through illness.

"Rehabilitation provided by ACC (which comprises treatment, social rehabilitation and vocational rehabilitation) is available to ACC claimants on an entitlement basis, unlike Ministry of Health-funded services for disabled people, which are rationed," the paper said.

It also found injured disabled people who needed help because of that injury had to juggle the ACC and welfare systems at the same time, which often treated them very differently.

It would also mean that these vulnerable people wouldn’t necessarily receive the treatment they require, which is pretty ridiculous considering the huge profits ACC makes each year.

Disability Strategist Sacha Dylan said such inconsistencies had been highlighted by the disability sector for "many years".

"That loss of potential earnings subsidy is interesting, because it's young people who haven't actually had a job. It's ACC's way of trying to say, well, if they did have a job, how would we assess the potential earnings? And of course, it's like 80 percent of the minimum wage, which is a lot higher than the benefits that disabled people can get paid through."

It was also "fundamentally wrong" to have two systems treating disabled people in different ways, because of the way they became disabled, Dylan said.

 

In other words its own research shows that ACC is racist, sexist, ageist as well as discriminatory against people who are injured at birth. This doesn’t just mean the scheme is unfit for purpose, it means that there are numerous Kiwis out there who aren’t able to reach their full potential because the Government’s out-dated policy and ACC’s discriminatory procedures are holding them back.

So what's the Minister going to do about it?

Carmel Sepuloni, who is also Minister for Social Development and Disabilities Issues, did not think a radical overhaul of the scheme was needed, but some changes were likely.

"What we want to do is make sure it works for all New Zealanders. Some of the statistics that came back that the media have now seen, that I've commissioned, shows that actually there are some differences with regards to how groups benefit from the system. So I don't know if that requires an overhaul, or let's just get in there, make some changes."

What those changes are remain to be seen, but Sepuloni said she had requested policy advice on including birth injuries in the ACC scheme. She had also asked officials for more information about the inequalities facing women, Māori, Pasifika and disabled people.

If the Government is serious about helping the disabled, which could also reduce the number of suicides in New Zealand each year, then they must ensure that anybody and everybody who gets injured, but especially people with long-term disabilities, receive the financial assistance and health treatments they require. Because without proper assistance many people’s lives are being unnecessarily made even more difficult than they should be.

What we don’t need however is another round of research into what the problems are. We already know what needs to be done…so get on with it and fix ACC already.

National stiffs us for $180 million

The National party really does appear to be quite desperate for some good news at the moment to subdue the party faithful. Unfortunately for them, and because of their dysfunctional administration, the numerous cases of their incompetence being reported in the media recently looks set to dash National’s hopes for re-election.

Earlier today, the government announced:

ACC Minister Judith Collins today announced reductions to motor vehicle levies in 2015/16 meaning the average New Zealand vehicle owner will be $135 better off each year.

“Earlier this year the Government signalled our intention to reduce ACC levies as part of Budget 2014 – today’s announcement delivers on this,” Ms Collins says.

“ACC continues to improve its financial situation, transforming the way it supports injured New Zealanders and building on its investment returns.”

Judith Collins also tweeted:

We're delivering NZers $480 million reduction in ACC levies http://t.co/aqudUBIkTQ
— Judith Collins (@JudithCollinsMP) August 5, 2014

That all sounds fine and dandy doesn’t it? However, the National led government could have reduced levies a lot earlier than 2015/16 if they’d only followed official advice.

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

NZ workers and businesses denied $180m in ACC levy cuts

New Zealand workers and businesses are to be denied almost $180 million in ACC levy cuts next year as recommended by the corporation, leaving it with an embarrassment of riches.

The Government has set aside the Accident Compensation Corporation's recommendation that workers and businesses receive $658 million in levy cuts next year, instead cutting them by $480 million as indicated at the Budget.

The smaller cuts were confirmed by Prime Minister John Key at an Auckland Chamber of Commerce luncheon today.

"It comes on top of previous ACC levy reductions of close to $1 billion that we announced in 2011/12," he said.

"These levy reductions are possible because of a number of factors - good management of ACC and favourable economic factors sustained over a number of years.

By “good management of ACC” Key actually means the tougher regime that has ensured many thousands of claimants have been unfairly denied ACC support. That's where most of the additional money has come from. The governments requirement for ACC to dismiss claimants, especially long term ones, has also resulted in a huge increase in court cases, prompting National to try and remove people’s right to have their cases heard in a court of law.

National’s decision to not follow the recommendation isn’t just going to cause ACC a headache in terms of what to do with all that extra cash, the government is also ensuring the general public is being charged a lot more for a lot longer than they really need to be.

This type of fiscal mismanagement isn’t going to be rewarded by voters at the upcoming election. Clearly National should have given people some financial relief, which for those on low incomes could have made all the difference in the world.

National nobbles Ombudsman

I've been waiting for nearly 8 months now for the Minister of ACC, Judith Collins, to respond to an Official Information Act (PDF) request I made in June 2012, and this week received a letter from the Deputy Ombudsman concerning a complaint I made about that request for information not being adhered to:

As at 17 February 2013, we have over 2,800 complaints on hand and limited investigator capacity. We are therefore not in a position to be able to investigate all of the complaints before us at the same time. This has meant that we are experiencing delays in progressing some of the complaints before us and, in particular, delays in being able to allocate complaints to the investigators who assist the Ombudsmen to undertake their enquiries. At present, we have approximately 450 complaints that we have not yet been able to allocate to investigators. Your complaint is one of those awaiting allocation to an investigator.

We are taking a number of steps to progress the complaints before us as quickly as possible, within the resources that we have available. In particular, I have allocated additional staffing resources to our Intake and Assessment Team to assist with the initial assessment of all incoming complaints and to ensure that we are able to reply to all incoming correspondence on those complaints in a more timely fashion.

Clearly the Ombudsman doesn't have enough staff to deal with the influx of complaints that will mostly be concerned with the failings of the current defunct administration.

If nothing else, that increase of complaints shows the government has become even more dysfunctional under National.

In my opinion, Nationals failure to adequately resource the office of the Ombudsman is a deliberate ploy on their part to stymie their ability to investigate complaints properly.

It's also a way for ministers to not have to release information that will highlight their incompetency... Talk about manipulative!

Collins fails to fix ACC

Today, the Dominion Post reported:

ACC has apologised to a rape victim after a manager in charge of sensitive claims tried to blame her when a report containing medical information was altered.

Instead, it was ACC that had censored important details from a psychiatrist's report about the rape and incest client.

So ACC blamed a sexual abuse victim for changing documents they themselves altered... This was of course to bring the claimant into disrepute in the hope of being able to decline her treatment.

The senior ACC staffers involved in the botch-up were Dr Dodwell, and ACC team manager Karmal Mark.

Dr Dodwell was asked by ACC to assess a medication claim from the client for treatment for complex mental health issues arising from her accepted ACC claim following years of systemic sexual abuse.

But half of the psychiatrist's report was deleted by ACC and the psychiatrist's signature was cut and pasted from another page.

The word "abridged" was inserted above Ms Mark's contact details before the report was sent to Dr Dodwell.

The changes were not properly recorded, and that "oversight" was clearly done for a reason... This was no honest mistake by ACC and in my opinion altering documents to try and discredit a client amounts to forgery.

After receiving the report, Dr Dodwell wrote: "A line appears to have been deleted . . . presumably by the claimant.

"Censorship of medical reports by a claimant is not acceptable and appears to breach the trust ACC demonstrated in allowing the claimant to bar direct contact with treatment providers."

The psychiatrist "clearly wrote something he considered significant to her management", Dr Dodwell said.

So before even checking, Dodwell immediately accused the client of altering the documents... How despicable! ACC would have written to the client to make the false accusations in order to cause her distress, which is another way ACC ensures claimants often give up fighting for what they're entitled to.

When The Dominion Post questioned ACC about the altered report, they delayed replying while they went back to the psychiatrist to confirm his original report was different to the abridged version.

The psychiatrist confirmed the full report was his, not the abridged version, and told ACC: "I have now confirmed this on three occasions to ACC. I trust three confirmations are adequate".

Finally, on Friday the corporation confirmed to The Dominion Post that a letter of apology would be sent to the client.

Of course ACC's apology was only forthcoming after the media became involved.

The sensitive claims unit client said it was typical of ACC to make thinly veiled accusations of what could amount to criminal behaviour against clients but she provided documents showing ACC changed the report, not her.

The debacle "is more than outrageous, it is criminal and yet they have had the audacity to blame me for tampering with a medical report".

"I'm appalled, disgusted and very distressed and angry. I am so damn angry about it . . . this is quite simply not acceptable," the woman said.

Such behaviour is obviously acceptable to the Minister of ACC, Judith Collins, who promised a culture change at ACC after the Bronwyn Puller debacle blew up in Nationals face. However nothing has changed and ACC is still causing claimants undue distress by being dishonest.

ACC medical assessors are obviously still being paid bonuses for declining claimants without good reason.

It's apparent that the lack of any government impetus to fix ACC is an attempt to shift public opinion concerning the no fault scheme so that it can be privatised... That's Nationals end game here, and that's why ACC is continuing to mistreat its clients.

Before being appointed medical adviser for the ACC unit dealing with its most sensitive cases, Dr Dodwell was sacked from his job in Australia.

In March 2008, he was dismissed from his role as chief medical officer at HealthQuest, a medical screening body for bureaucrats, after he passed on information about a teacher applying for a job.

You've got to wonder if ACC goes out and headhunts these types of people?

An investigation by a former New South Wales deputy police commissioner David Madden said Dr Dodwell tried to adversely affect a decision to employ the teacher by saying she was being investigated by police for defamatory website postings about him.

"The way in which he [Dodwell] went about informing the Department of Education was inappropriate and not reasonable behaviour of a public official," the Madden report said.

No wonder Peter Dodwell works for ACC, he's a complete wanker!

With many similar despicable cases of ACC abusing clients, it's obvious that the system is still highly dysfunctional. Clearly Judith Collins has totally failed to implement any type of culture change at ACC, which is another indication that she's a complete failure of a minister.

In my opinion, Judith Collins should resign from her ACC responsibilities forthwith... But unfortunately she's not being held to account at all for the mess that ACC has become.

John Roughan rewrites history

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

ACC data leak turned out to contain nothing personal. 

Among the Christmas cards I get at work there is always one from the Privacy Commissioner, Marie Shroff. Invariably it contains a good visual gag. 

This year's features a Slane cartoon of a boy stuck with his head and upper body in a Dutch dyke and a passer-by explains to another, "The leak was worse than first thought". 

I hope the irony was intended, because it's time to acknowledge that the biggest leak of the year, the one that the news kept calling a "massive privacy breach" which the commissioner had to investigate, turned out not to be very big at all.

John Roughan seems to be questioning whether ACC leaking the names and details of 7000 claimants, including 250 sensitive-claims clients who were victims of sexual abuse and violent crimes, was a big deal... What an idiot!

If leaking thousands of people's personal information isn't a 'massive privacy breach' I don't know what is?

It sounded serious when it was first reported that the personal details of thousands of ACC claimants had been accidentally emailed to one unnamed claimant. Among them were said to be victims of sexual offences.

Said to be victims of sexual offences? Trying to dismiss this as a none event is bad enough, especially when Roughan is doing his best to ignore the facts of the matter, but providing disinformation of this magnitude in New Zealands main newspaper is entirely unacceptable.

One of the undeniable facts that Roughan has ignored is that the leaked information did contain the addresses, names and other private details of victims of sexual abuse and violent crimes. Instead of acknowledging the seriousness of the problem, Roughan decides to belittle those that do understand the magnitude and scope of the privacy breach.

Meanwhile, Labour and the Greens made a sustained attack on ACC's "culture", not just its carelessness with email but its determination to check all claims rigorously and get the injured back to work quickly.

The story took on so many dimensions and ran for so long that the Privacy Commissioner's investigation of the original data leak became little more than a footnote.

Actually the Greens and Labour were raising concerns that the Privacy Commissioner, Marie Shroff, also concluded were serious problems within ACC. Roughan is trying to rewrite history here, and doing a pretty lousy job of it.

By the time they presented the Privacy Commissioner with their report, the country was sick of the subject and hardly anybody read it.

How on earth would Roughan know that? He obviously doesn't have access to the download statistics of the Privacy Commissioners report (PDF), and is therefore lying like the fool he is.

It ran to 102 pages. You had to read to page 99 to discover exactly what sort of confidential client information had escaped.

But finally, in the fifth appendix, there it was: a sample of the fabled spreadsheet of "personal" data. It consisted of four tables listing claimants' names (removed for the report), their claim numbers, review numbers, branch, lodgement dates, issue codes, decision dates and the like.

That was it. That is all there was.

There was nothing that could be of the slightest use or interest to anyone outside ACC. No personal details alongside the names, no injury information, nothing.

What a load of turgid rubbish! Firstly the leaked information contained addresses, which would be of interest to more than just ACC staff. The victims of violent or sexual crimes would not want their addresses known by their abusers and many of those abusers would be interested in where their victims lived. Only a complete fool would think that such information wasn't important.

The other fact that Roughan is ignoring is that sensitive claims are identified at registration through their injury code and these codes were included in the leaked information. Therefore the leaked information directly identified people who were the victims of sexual and violent crimes. The codes within the leaked information also outline exactly what injuries were inflicted.

Saying that the victims of violent and sexual crimes weren't directly identified in the leaked information when they were is a particularly disgusting part of Roughan's propaganda. Either through sheer ignorance or contemptible blatant disinformation Roughan is displaying a complete lack of journalistic integrity. The deluded old hack then has the gall to question reports that deal in facts.

That is what all the fuss had been about. 

The thing that disappointed me was that so many people had known all along that the "massive privacy breach" amounted to nothing more than this. Investigative reporters, the Privacy Commissioner, her Independent Review Team, all would have discovered the contents of the spreadsheet very quickly.

None blew the whistle. No reports that I saw looked critically at the facts at the heart of a story that kept on growing and giving. The Privacy Commissioner did not say something to restore a sense of proportion. The review team, no doubt well paid, went about its investigation as though there was a serious problem.

Roughan is correct that nobody else worth mentioning is dismissing the massive privacy breach at ACC or the Privacy Commissioners report... That's simply because they shouldn't be brushed under the carpet like the ignoramus Roughan is trying to do.

The sense of proportion for Roughan seems to be that he wasn't directly affected and so he doesn't care. But what's even worse is that he's actively lying to try and dismiss the problems inherent in the way ACC operates, with the Independent Review Team concluding that:

The Breach that occurred was a genuine error but that errors are able to happen because of systemic weaknesses within ACC’s culture, systems and processes. The subsequent “response process” could also have been better if appropriate policies, practices, escalation protocols and the “right culture” were in place to allow for transparency of breach handling at the appropriate levels, in an appropriate manner. A similar incident is much more likely to happen again in the current environment if the issues identified in this Independent Review are not addressed systematically and systemically.

Perhaps the NZ Herald might like to report on any progress that ACC is making to address the issues identified by the Independent Review Team... Such an article would be worth reading, which is more than can be said for Roughan's tripe!

An accident had happened. An ACC rehabilitation officer had a monthly sheet of case reviews on his screen when he decided to respond to an email. He dragged the data aside, clicked a wrong button and unwittingly attached it to the return email.

Computers are a minefield for privacy. Accidents will happen, despite all the procedures the commissioner's expert team has laid down. It happened to Social Welfare kiosks a short time later.

Despite these privacy breaches both being a result of incompetence and a lack of proper procedures, they're different types of privacy breaches that cannot really be compared. Being that this fact like many others has entirely escaped John Roughan's awareness just goes to confirm that he's an idiot of the highest order. Let's hope he takes more than just a couple of weeks off over Christmas.

Judith Collins defamation fail

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

ACC Minister Judith Collins' defamation action against Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little has been settled following a hearing in the High Court at Auckland today.

Ms Collins initiated the defamation case against the pair after comments they made on Radio New Zealand linking her to the leak of an email from former National Party President Michelle Boag.

The email identified Bronwyn Pullar as the woman at the centre of a massive privacy breach at ACC.

In New Zealand the plaintiff, in this case Judith Collins, would have started court proceeding for defamation by filing a statement of claim with the court registrar.

In order to withdraw from this action, the plaintiff usually needs to write a request that the statement of claim be terminated. They're also required to give reasons to be considered by a judge. Here's what that letter might have looked like:

Auckland High Court
Cnr Waterloo Quadrant & Parliament Street

May it please your Honour,

I write to formally request a termination of defamation proceedings against Labour MPs Andrew Little and Trevor Mallard.

It has been brought to my attention that to determine whether there is a case to answer the court would need to initiate an investigation into the Michelle Boag letter that was leaked to the media by me, from my office or by ACC.

Under the law the evidence unearthed by an investigation that specifically looked into this leak would be shared with the defendants who would likely make it public. This could be highly humiliating and I might even be made to resign from my cushy job, which cannot be allowed to happen.

It is written into our constitution that a National minister should never be made to resign for leaking the private information of New Zealand citizens to the media in order to try and shut them up. Therefore I request that you just forget about my statement of claim in the high court. I mean who really cares if I made all those media statements about defamation and what not? I certainly don't.

Please keep in mind that we control funding for the courts and so you had better consider this letter in my favour and in the strictest confidence. The leaking of private information is only allowed to happen when it's in our best interests and if you want to remain a high court judge, you had better do as I say and not as I do.

Yours insincerely,

[Dis]Hon Judith Collins

Minister of Injustice
Minister for ACC leaks

Private Bag 18041, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160, New Zealand. Telephone 64 4 817 6806

Jacinda Ardern vs Paula Bennett

Doctors lose power to diagnose

Today, National reported on a speech given by Paula Bennett:

Not that long after I became the Minister for Social Development, a distraught woman told me a story about her son.

Her son was about 19, he had Asperger’s syndrome, but she described him as handsome (as only mums do) and very physically fit.

He had worked since leaving school, but left after a couple of years to visit his father in Australia.

On his return she found that he had lost all motivation.

He was smoking marijuana and drifting about, doing nothing.

To sort him out she sent him to Work and Income.

In her words she thought he would get the ‘kick in the pants’ he needed and help to get a job.

She thought this would be a turning point in her son’s life.

But she came home to her son on the couch, marijuana smoke everywhere, watching TV and looking deflated.

He had been told he didn’t need to get a job - they wouldn’t be putting him forward or helping him find one - because he was entitled to an Invalid’s Benefit, and they’d start it straight away.

He told her he had no hope left because even the government didn’t think he could do anything, he felt worthless, so what was the point in trying?

That’s the message our system has been sending to people with disability or illness.

Remember, Work and Income staff had just followed the rules and made sure he got his entitlement.

This seems highly unlikely... But let's asume that there was an 19 year old male who has Asperger’s syndrome, smokes pot and has a mum who contacted the Minister of Social Development about WINZ giving her son an Invalid Benefit sometime in 2008.

Actually let's not asume she isn't lying because she is: There's usually a stand down period for people who apply for the Invalid Benefit and in 2008 there was no automatic acceptance for a person who had been working. Somebody applying for an Invalid Benefit also had to produce medical evidence of their incapacity and then be examined by a doctor appointed by WINZ.

Once you get through the Minister's waffling, it appears that Paula Bennett is proposing to use the same process as ACC to move invalid and sickness beneficiaries onto the unemployment benefit in order to save the government money. In other words WINZ case managers will decide if a person is fit for work and Doctors will lose their power to diagnose patients. The applicant can appeal, but this process has recently been exposed as a complete farce by the media, which highlighted the lengths to which corrupt specialists go to in order to decline legitimate claimants.

Despite Labour introducing a stricter application criteria, between June 2004 and 2007 the number of people receiving the invalids benefit increased by 10%. This is because when ACC got into financial trouble it was instructed by the then government to remove as many claimants as it could. National when it gained power then implemented further measures to ensure a reduction in long-term ACC claimants, which increased the amount of invalid beneficiaries by 11% to 88,134 in 2011. Many of these people had no other choice but to apply for the Invalid Benefit when their ACC payments were cancelled.

In the long run National's policy to reduce the amount of invalid and sickness beneficiaries by simply moving them onto the unemployment benefit will cost the country more and cause further hardship and suffering for the unwell. This is because without proper rehabilitation back into employment, people will spend more time on welfare. But instead of creating jobs and ensuring people are able to fulfill them, National is only concerned with blaming the victims.

Bennett's shortsightedness is therefore not morally justifiable nor beneficial to the economy.

ACC's corrupt specialists

Today, Stuff reported:

ACC is spending millions of dollars flying doctors around New Zealand to assess long-term clients who have already been assessed by other doctors.

The policy has been slammed by John Miller - one of the country's top lawyers specialising in ACC legislation - who said the so-called “independence” of some assessors was a sham.

ACC lawyers, advocates and claimant groups know those doctors as “hatchet men and women”, Mr Miller said.

“They are not independent, as a substantial part of their income comes from ACC,” he said.

ACC figures reveal the corporation pays millions of dollars a year to a group of “independent assessors”, often flying them to towns or cities where other doctors with suitable qualifications already practise.

In some cases the ACC assessors are flown from the South Island to North Island cities.

At least $3 million was spent last year on airfares and assessment fees for a group of less than 12 doctors.

Outrageous! It's little wonder then that the amount of reviews people have been making concerning ACC declining their claims has increased dramatically from 4937 in 2005/06 to 8069 in 2011/12.

With a group of so-called specialists being employed to ensure long-term claimants are declined the amount of long-term active claims has fallen by 4796 since 2001/02. That's a large group of people who are not getting the assistance they need specifically because ACC's specialists have a vested interest to decline genuine claims. They are in fact paid bonuses to decline legitimate claims, which gives them a financial incentive to do the wrong thing.

This has caused a huge increase in the amount of appeals being filed against ACC in the district Court from 594 in 2008 to 799 in 2011. However many claimants are simply too sick to fight ACC's lawyers for their entitlements, so we should consider the problem created by such repressive policy is larger than these figures indicate.

Clearly the current regime of ACC specialists declining people’s claims without justification and often contradicting existing medical assessments isn't in the best interest of people's rehabilitation. It's also not in the best interest of New Zealand. Such underhanded tactics go against the principle of what the scheme was set up to achieve.

Of course National is happy to allow this dysfunction to continue because their ultimate goal is to privatize ACC. Anything that discredits what was a world leading no fault scheme means that the public will more likely accept the right wings neoliberal agenda to sell ACC. The profit motive will then cause even more issues and ensure Kiwis who are sick or injured do not receive assistance.

As Minister of ACC, Judith Collins should be ashamed of the current situation. Disgraceful!

Crusher Collins won't fix it

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

ACC Minister Judith Collins said Mr Stewart told her on Tuesday "he felt it was time for him to move on".

She said she felt sorry for Mr Stewart. "He's had a tough time."

Greens ACC spokesman Kevin Hague said Mr Stewart's resignation cleared the way for Mrs Collins to lead the process for refreshing ACC by steering it away from what he and others claim has been a focus on denying claims to save money and bringing it back to the principles on which it was founded.

"We need to reverse this culture of disentitlement that's taken hold since 2009 and with those key players - [former ACC minister] Nick Smith, John Judge and Ralph Stewart - gone we've got the environment to do that."

Mr Hague said there were serious questions Mrs Collins needed to answer about her role in the Bronwyn Pullar affair.

But Labour's ACC spokesman, Andrew Little, said Mrs Collins should be the next to go as Mr Stewart's resignation confirmed the depth of the crisis.

"It is an absolute disgrace, and it is entirely the responsibility of that Government'', he told the House, and accused Mrs Collins and Dr Smith as her predecessor of driving ACC "into the ground".

Mr Little said ACC now needed a minister who was focused on the needs of ACC claimants rather than on the Government's "tawdry, nasty, filthy little strategy of trying to fleece people and get people to lose their entitlements".

Mrs Collins said it was time for a culture change at ACC but her concerns were about treatment of claimants and their privacy.

Collins has previously inferred that it was OK to automatically decline long-term claimants because there are other ways they can get help. I guess she was talking about WINZ, who have no rehabilitative capability for people who are injured.

What this is all about was some terrible ACC investments that went belly-up and instead of the government stepping in to meet the shortfall, ACC just started penny pinching from people who could least afford it.

Although Bronwyn Pullar is an exception to the rule, injured claimants are usually incapable of fighting back against ACC with its multitude of lawyers and corrupt specialists, that will pretty much do anything to decline people's entitlements.

Now that ACC is posting huge profits (around $3.5 billion in the year to date), National should return ACC to what it was meant to be. Sure, there are some people who rort the system, but this is not a good enough reason to tar everybody with the same brush.

Waiting for Judith

On the weekend, 60 Minutes reported on the Accident Compensation Corporation and Bronwyn Pullar controversy, which was a damning exposé into how senior ACC management made a false police statement concerning allegations that Pullar had tried to blackmail them.

What they didn’t know at the time was that Pullar had recorded the meeting where the alleged attempted blackmail was said to have occurred, and the tape shows that it was ACC who raised the issue of the leaked documents being returned, not Bronwyn Pullar or her support person Michelle Boag.

Pullar in fact stated that she would not use the documents that had supposedly been accidentally sent to her because she respected people’s privacy. This is a far cry from what ACC claimed in various press releases and their police statement.

So the question is; what will the Minister of ACC do about it?

Judith Collins has been very quiet on this matter, while screaming blue murder that Andrew Little and Trevor Mallard defamed her. It’s hypocritical to use the courts to attack two fellow MPs just to try and silence them while at the same time allowing senior ACC management to make false statements to the media and police without any penalty at all.

The Greens have called for ACC Chair John Judge to go:

This evening's 60 Minutes item concerning ACC's interactions with Bronwyn Pullar has highlighted the need for the Minister to act decisively to restore public trust and confidence in the organisation, says Green Party ACC spokesperson, Kevin Hague.

"The further revelations about shonky assessment and claims handling practices, and lack of integrity at the highest levels means that, at the very least, the ACC Minister should remove John Judge as ACC Chair.

A noble suggestion, but the Nats don't really care if ACC is damaged. This is because a damaged ACC would be easier to privatise, which is the right-wings ultimate goal here. So while Collins can claim:

I cannot emphasize enough how seriously I view recent privacy-related issues. Privacy and information security are the biggest challenges facing ACC at present.

National would actually see no problem with just sitting back and allowing public confidence in ACC erode.

By allowing a couple of lying bastards to get away with making a false complaint to the police, Judith Collins shows she is an ineffective minister. If she does not know what is right from wrong in this situation, in my opinion, she has no place being a minister of the crown at all.

ACC's false police complaint against Bronwyn Pullar

ACC Chief Executive Ralph Stewart and Chairman John Judge.

Today, One News reported:

The police will not lay any charges over the Bronwyn Pullar ACC case.

Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess said there would be no further investigation into the concerns raised in March following a leak of confidential information.

"After careful consideration of the evidence now available and a separate legal review of the facts we have determined that no offence has been disclosed," he said.

In March, ACC asked the police to review the circumstances around a confidential file that was mistakenly sent to Pullar last August.

The privacy breach was revealed earlier this year after Pullar, a former National Party figure, was inadvertently emailed the names and details of thousands of ACC clients.

The breach included the details of about 250 sensitive sexual abuse cases.

ACC laid a complaint over Pullar, accusing her of threatening to go public about being sent the confidential information unless the corporation promised to pay her a benefit for two years.

Pullar has claimed a recording of a meeting on 1 December 2011 between her, ACC staff and former National party president Michelle Boag shows she did not make the demands.

Clearly the complaint to the Police was not made in good faith. ACC would have known that Bronwyn Pullar had not tried to blackmail them, as the recording would have categorically proven.

It really amounts to ACC management making a false police complaint, which under the Crimes Act 1961 (PDF) is a serious offence:

112 Evidence of perjury, false oath, or false statement

No one shall be convicted of perjury, or of any offence against section 110 or section 111, on the evidence of 1 witness only, unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in some material particular by evidence implicating the accused.

113 Fabricating evidence 

Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to mislead any tribunal holding any judicial proceeding to which section 108 applies, fabricates evidence by any means other than perjury.

115 Conspiring to bring false accusation

Every one who conspires to prosecute any person for any alleged offence, knowing that person to be innocent thereof, is liable—
(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years if that person might, on conviction of the alleged offence, be sentenced to preventive detention, or to imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more:
(b) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years if that person might, on conviction of the alleged offence, be sentenced to imprisonment for a term less than 3 years.

So the real question is what will the police do about this false statement... and if they choose not to do anything, is that a result of Judith Collins' interference?

What will crush-less Collins do?

Today, stuff.co.nz reported:

A recording of a critical meeting between senior ACC managers and the whistleblower who exposed a massive privacy breach reveals the corporation misled its minister and the public.

The corporation has alleged that client Bronwyn Pullar threatened at the meeting to go to the media unless she was given a guaranteed two-year benefit.

It also alleged she said that she would withhold details of the breach involving private details of 6500 other clients – including sexual abuse victims – if her demands were not met.

Once details of the privacy breach were revealed by The Dominion Post, the ACC referred its extortion allegations against Ms Pullar to police.

However, a recording of a key meeting in December between Ms Pullar, her support person Michelle Boag – a senior National Party figure – and two ACC managers is at odds with the corporation's claims that were included in a report ordered by ACC Minister Judith Collins.

The ACC was given a transcript of the meeting more than three weeks ago, but has refused to correct its report.

Ms Pullar said it was outrageous that, having been provided with the recording, the corporation was refusing to correct a "blatant lie" on a public report.

Before publishing the report, the corporation did not ask Ms Pullar or former National Party president Ms Boag for their account of what was said at the meeting. ACC also complained to police about the alleged extortion threat before completing its report.

Will ACC minister Judith Collins investigate the obvious defamation of Bronwyn Pullar by ACC?

Considering she is so het up about a few comments made by Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little about leaked documents, it would be highly hypocritical if she didn't look into ACC lying to the police to bully a claimant. If Collins has any competence as a minister, we should see heads roll.

I also wonder if those who lambasted Bronwyn Pullar and Michele Boag for apparently trying to blackmail ACC are going to wake up to the smell of their own bullshit? Here's an example:

If I were the Police investigating this case I would be serving warrants on Bronwyn Pullar and also Michelle Boag to grab their computers. Since Boag has worked very closely with Pullar it is possible that they used the same type of malicious code to try and set up Judith Collins.

It was sad to see John Banks try to manufacture a split within the Labour caucus on Q+A yesterday... He's obviously been reading too much of Cameron Slaters waffling! The real factional split that will be leading the news tonight is the one in National... They must be in crisis mode.

Full independent inquiry required

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Speaking on Q+A this morning, Mr Key said he was never involved in the dispute.

"I'm not involved and have not been involved in any support or advisory arrangement with Bronwyn Pullar or Michelle Boag."

"It's not unusual for people to use my name, they do use it, they use it without my authority."

He has said he met Ms Pullar when he first entered politics - shortly after her accident - but had not had any contact with her since he became National Party leader.

John Key is therefore calling Pullar and/or Boag liars! They would have been the people who informed Sovereign Insurance that he was part of the 28 strong support/advocate "team".

Key said that it's not unusual for people to drop his name, but the questions put to him concerning his awareness of Pullar, prior to the Sovereign Insurance letter being leaked, were very specific.

Key initially said he had no knowledge of the ACC dispute, when he had in fact discussed it with Pullar in person at a Christmas function.

On Friday, the Dominion Post reported:

ACC whistleblower Bronwyn Pullar has revealed she spoke to John Key in person about her battle with a private insurance company - but he did not offer to help her.

Pullar said today she had vented "my frustrations" to Key at a National Party Christmas event. At that time Key was the MP for Helensville and not in government.

"I was very distressed at the time and I took the opportunity to vent my frustrations. He listened politely, but I did not ask him to do anything and he did not offer to assist," Pullar said in a statement today.

It looks like Boag and Pullar have been utilizing their associations in the National party for personal gain and it is likely that very senior members of the National party (including Key) are implicated in the stand-over tactics of a private insurer and a government department.

Being that John Key is against a full inquiry... it could be that he did in fact support or advocate for Pullar in some way. If he has nothing to hide, he should support a full independent inquiry to clear up any doubt.

It would appear that Judith Collins doesn't want a proper and full inquiry because she is likely behind the leak of the Boag email. This would assuredly end her political career and further destabilize the National government... hence the right wingers now closing ranks.

Bronwyn Pullar's list of ACC breaches

The scandal concerning who leaked the letter sent to ACC Minister Judith Collins by former National Party president Michelle Boag aside, there is no doubt that Bronwyn Pullar has been impacted by the governments more strict ACC requirements.

The problem here is that the crisis in ACC is eroding public confidence in what is a world-leading scheme. It's suspicious that this is happening at the precise time National will need to sell their plans to open up accident insurance to private insurers.

Anyway, here is a pretty decent list of some of the problems currently facing claimants:

1. Repeated non disclosure of correspondence regarding Bronwyn’s claim when requested.

2. Extensive disclosure of other claimant’s information to Bronwyn

3. No ability to restrict unauthorised access by 2500+ ACC staff and contractors to files, or medical files

4. Medical records (considered in law to be the most sensitive of personal information) are not given protection which is appropriate to their status and are treated as general documents.

5. Lack of procedure around dealing with statements of correction to incorrect reports

6. Threats of legal action against Bronwyn’s GP for refusing to disclosure non-injury information. Misuse of criminal provisions in ACC legislation.

7. Collection of information for an unlawful purpose

8. False written and oral statements by ACC staff with the purpose of unlawfully procuring medical reports for pecuniary purposes.

9. Defamatory statements by ACC employees

10. Exceeding lawful powers by investigating injuries for which no claim has been made.

11. Derogatory emails by ACC staff

12. Excessive Access to Bronwyn’s files – 1948 accesses within 3 ½ years, by about 150 different individuals, of which 1100 were in a single one year period.

13. Staff accessing files against management instructions

14. ACC167 Consent – used to coerce claimant’s into authorising otherwise unlawful collections of information.

15. Collection of personal information without claimant’s knowledge &/or attempted collection without knowledge

16. Collection and attempts to collect information unrelated to injury/claim

17. Imbalanced and biased decision making by Corporation

18. Covert/inappropriate communication to assessors which bias & negatively influence outcomes against claimants

19. Decision making without reviewing EOS

20. Lack of workability of electronic medical file for lawfully compliant decision making

21. Coercion, Harassment & Bullying, Unreasonable approach in management of claims. Use of threats of disentitlement to coerce

22. Dictatorial approach of Case Managers, failure to make reasonable accommodations for claimant needs.

23. “cherry picking” of unfavourable phrases from medical reports which contradict the ultimate conclusion.

24. ACC abusing its monopoly position by limiting the pool of qualified medical assessors to a select group (some individuals assessors are paid up in excess of $1 million annually for services), leading to the appearance of bias and unfair market practises.

25. Failure to demand adherence of staff to State Services Code of Conduct and to take appropriate action for  breach

26. Failure of Office of Complaints Investigator to independently investigate complaints

27. Failure of Office of Complaints Investigator to follow a reasonable process when conducting investigations

28. Failure of Office of Complaints Investigator to validate the responses provided by ACC with the claimant for accuracy

29. ACC’s case management approach to Bronwyn is disruptive and destructive of her ability to rehabilitate/work part-time

30. ACC staff deliberately lying and writing false reports

31. ACC staff making clinical decisions without appropriate qualification

32. ACC staff making clinical assessments without medical competency

33. Deliberate interference in independent medical assessments

34. Prejudicial correspondence with independent assessors prior to assessments communicating ACC’s desired outcome – that injuries are spent &/or due to non-injury causes

35. Provision of unqualified, non-specialist opinions, by ACC internal medical advisors, contradicting existing specialist advice, prejudicing independent assessors and compromising their independence

36. Branches/Units having Case Managers who made an initial decision then conduct an administrative review of a matter before being sent to DRSL for review

37. Taking advantage of disabled claimants for actuarial/financial gain

38. Poor decision making which adds cost to the Corporation

39. Poor OCI processes which adds cost to the Corporation

40. Lack of flexibility over assessments/appointments/referrals

41. Lack of reasonable consultation and flexibility over assessments/ appointments/referrals

42. Unreasonable referrals/assessments processes which are exploitative e.g., chaperones, multi-party assessments, lack of privacy & dignity

43. Focus on avoiding liability at the expense of effective early rehabilitation

44. ‘Silo’ culture where case managers are unaware of ACC’s own research into rehabilitation best practice

45. Constant churn of case managers – each new case manager is unaware of the medical evidence on file leading to poor decision making and is unaware of claimant’s issues; Avoidance strategy for accountability of actions.

ACC Forum is a good place to read up on some of the thousands of claimants who have had their claims wrongfully dismissed.

Andrew Little on the ACC debacle

If you truly believe in a decent democracy, you would not support the current government who have proven themselves unworthy of their positions.

It’s obvious that they don’t have the best interest of our country and it’s people as a priority. They are in fact self serving narcissistic back stabbing capitalist running dogs… creaming our so-called democracy for their own benefit.

National have no comprehension of what morals, honour and accountability stand for… it’s a vague notion that does not register in their befuddled and bigoted minds. To quote Nick Smith, they should do us all a favour by throwing themselves under a train.

Pass the barf bucket

Today, stuff.co.nz reported:

The Minister for Local Government and then ACC minister yesterday apologised for writing a reference last July on ministerial letterhead for friend Bronwyn Pullar to use in her medical assessment for an ACC claim.

An apology is not enough, especially considering Nick Smith would have known that he was breaching his employment conditions as then Minister for ACC.

The question is what influence did Puller have on Smith to illicit the support letter from him and why would he risk his cushy job by writing a letter that was clearly designed to influence ACC?

According to an article in the NZ Herald today, Winston Peters had revealed that Smith and Puller's friendship was more than just platonic. Not only is Smith's position in jeopardy, it appears his three year marriage to Linley Newport could be on the rocks as well.

The political stakes couldn't be higher, with the National led coalitions one seat majority potentially in doubt. This could result in a hung parliament whereby National's big ticket policies such as asset sales would fail. It's no wonder then that John Key has decided to back the corrupt Smith:

Prime Minister John Key has rejected opposition calls for him to sack Smith, saying it was ''an error of judgment'' and he had not breached the Cabinet manual.

He has also said the letter had not appeared to have influenced ACC because Pullar was still unhappy with the support she received.

Wrong again Prime Minister. Blackmail is still a crime even if it is not successful. Likewise, undue influence breaches the Cabinet Manual 2008 (PDF), which states:

2.62 A conflict may arise if people close to a Minister, such as a Minister’s family, whānau, or close associates, might derive, or be perceived as deriving, some personal, financial, or other benefit from a decision or action by the Minister or the government. Ministers must therefore be careful not to use information they access in the course of their official activities in a way that might provide some special benefit to family members, whānau, or close associates.

2.63 Similarly, it may not be appropriate for Ministers to participate in decision making on matters affecting family members, whānau, or close associates; for example, by:

attempting to intercede on their behalf on some official matter;
proposing family members for appointments;
participating in decisions that will affect the financial position of a family member.

2.64 Public perception is a very important factor. If a conflict arises in relation to the interests of family, whānau, or close associates, Ministers should take appropriate action.

So there is a fundamental breach of the Cabinet Manual, which John Key would know if he'd bothered to read it. Let's hope the Auditor General can get to the bottom of what really happened.

ACC's accident?

Yesterday, Radio New Zealand reported:

It has confirmed details of more than 9000 ACC claims, covering about 6000 people, were accidentally emailed to one of its clients last August.

Chief executive Ralph Stewart has apologised for what he calls a regretful and shocking accident, saying clearly the corporation's processes were not strong enough to avoid the mistake and must be reviewed.

He told Checkpoint the names of 137 people making sensitive claims were released. ACC's sensitive claims unit deals with sexual abuse and rape victims.

Mr Stewart says an Auckland staff member accidentally emailed a spreadsheet containing the personal information to a client. He says she is distraught but at this stage her job is not at stake.

How can this be an accident? Attaching a spreadsheet to an email takes premeditation and is not as simple as clicking the wrong button.

And why has it taken eight months since the breach of privacy occurred before people were informed? Perhaps it's another case of hold off until after the election.

What would people think if the private information had been released to somebody like Cameron Slater I wonder? Clearly an independent inquiry is required.

The Green Chain

I watched a great doco last weekend called The Green Chain, which was all about Sawmill Workers Against Poisons (SWAP), an organization comprised of and for people affected by chemical exposure in Sawmills and Pulp and Papermills.

SWAP is also concerned with the environmental impacts of toxic waste and has identified many contaminated dumpsites around New Zealand.

The main toxic substance that has affected many thousands of sawmill workers and their families is Pentachlorophenol (PCP), which was widely used in the timber industry for years as a cheap treatment for sapstain, a fungal infection commonly found in softwoods such as pine.

The process creates a number of toxic impurities such as tetrachlorophenol, hexachlorobenzene and several types of dioxins and dibenzofurans. The main route of absorption is through the skin. PCP exposure corresponds to an extra risks of cancer from 20 to 140 times greater than normal. The current acceptable level of exposure is now 10^-6 ppm, effectively amounting to no safe level of daily exposure.

Despicably the consequences of working with this chemical were known well before it became widely used. But it wasn't until 1986 that some workers made the association between their ill health and exposure to PCP. The owners of treatment plants simply allowed their workers to come into contact with the highly carcinogenic substance, with little or no protective clothing, all the while knowing that many of them would become sick and die.

The government owned many of these despicably run businesses, and are ultimately liable. That’s why they’ve been doing everything they can to cover up their negligence. You would expect a sympathetic and robust response to the families affected... not so. The workers who have become unwell because of exposure to PCP are given one free health check per year and that’s it. No proper health plan, no compensation, not even an apology.



New Zealand has the highest rate of cancer in the world. Many areas that experience increased cancer rates such the Waikato Lakes and the Bay of Plenty have or had large Sawmill and Papermill industries, which result in contaminated waste by-product. People are still becoming unwell because most of the waste remains improperly disposed of.

The workers who were directly exposed have not received compensation because ACC says they cannot pin point exactly when exposure occurred, with anybody who worked with PCP for less than a year automatically ineligible for compensation. Those affected also need to prove that their health problems are a direct result of their work, thus ACC claims that there are many things that could be the cause of their cancers.

It’s a disgusting manoeuvre to limit liability. Compensation has never been granted despite many health reports and irrefutable evidence that the sawmill workers ill health is a direct result of their exposure to PCP. The government is simply waiting for these people to die, which will under current law ultimately absolve them of their responsibility.

It’s not only the workers who are affected though; their families also bear the cost of their fathers and husbands unknowingly working with dangerous substances. As well as loosing and having to look after their unwell loved ones, saturation of work clothes resulted in cross contamination, meaning that many wives and children are also adversely affected.

Because of damage to the workers DNA, there will be hereditary health problems for these families, meaning their children will suffer ill health many years after the Pesticides Board banned pentachlorophenol in New Zealand in 1994, some twenty years after its dangers were first known to the government.