The Herald editorial this morning is pretty much on the money, particularly with¬†regard¬†to the actions and motivations of Bronwyn Pullar:
Accident compensation claimant Bronwyn Pullar and her friend Michelle Boag say they have been vindicated by a tape recording they made at a meeting where they were said to have tried to take advantage of an email accident. But this tape leaves neither side with much credit.
Certainly, the tape has not recorded an overt threat in the terms that ACC officers alleged. But it remains strange that the subject was even raised at a meeting that was arranged, as Ms Boag says, purely to discuss Ms Pullar’s personal case. Why did she feel it relevant to tell the officers, “An email was sent to Bronwyn … and it contained thousands of elements of highly sensitive information … ,” before she returned to the subject of her friend’s needs?
Understandably, the officers inferred they were being offered a deal and the tape records that when one of them said, “I guess from our point of view, one of the things that when we reach a settlement … is we will want the information back”, Ms Boag replied, “Absolutely”.
She presents Ms Pullar to the public as a “whistle-blower” on the ACC’s shoddy computer security but whistle-blowers do not agree to suggestions that they remain quiet, or if they do they cannot claim to be acting purely in the public interest.
Bang on the money, and frankly her excuse for not deleting or handing back the data was simply not¬†believable.
Ms Pullar has a long-running resentment of the ACC’s refusal to satisfy her claim. Nevertheless, when one of her email exchanges with her assessors accidentally dropped information on thousands of other people’s claims into her lap she ought to have either deleted the material immediately, or made the ACC’s privacy breach a matter of public knowledge very quickly, then deleted the evidence. Waiting three months can only suggest she was more interested in her own case.
Uh-huh…that has been what this is about all along…a¬†petulant¬†Pullar set on getting her own way in what ever means possible. When the meetings didn’t pan out like she wanted all of a sudden Phil Kitchin is writing bad articles. ACC then is in an unenviable position of not being able to defend itself due to privacy issues and having a “claimant” hurl shit all over the place.
I’m not defending ACC, but the Herald editorial rightly questions the motives of Pullar and by extension those of her “support person” Ms Boag.
There are¬†definitely¬†systemic issues in ACC, but what on earth does anyone expect from a state welfare behemoth that faces no competitive challenges which would help sharpen their work practices?
It seems though that the Herald is right and Judith Collins needs to swing the axe at the board level long, hard and deep.