Here is the timeline from the Pullar complaint from the KPMG Independent Review – I will let you be the judge based on how New Zealand operates over the Christmas period as to the appropriateness in terms of time for ACC’s response.
Again yes ACC is tits and should be privatised. Â But this is not a simple matter of ACC bad, client good all the time. Sometimes the client and their constant nagging contributes to their own issues.
1. The Independent Review found no evidence ACC knew of the privacy breach (the email where Pullar received limited data about 6,500 claimants) until 1 December 2011. Â Prior to this Pullar had made no specific mention of the privacy breach, just her usual inept gobbing about her own case, name-dropping and begging to old contacts. She even compiled her own review of ACC, a 45 point general rantings of an alleged brain injury victim, about everything she sees wrong with ACC.
Even then at the meeting Pullar was not clear what the information was – as tabled in the Auditor General’s report. A deliberate act to call their bluff.
2. ACC wrote to Pullar on 9 December 2011 responding to matters to do with her claim (45 very long but extraordinarily general points) and asked her to return the data. Â In other words destroy it and prove it has been. Â There’s no mention in the reports that Pullar assisted at this stage other than to hold’em.
3. Like the Madam Pullar is known to be in her dealings with Sovereign, uncovered by Jock Anderson, her lawyer informed ACC she would not be contactable for two entire months over Christmas and New Year. Â Generally New Zealanders are all on holiday at that time, ACC included. Â The Unions wouldn’t have it otherwise.
4. Boag intervenes while Pullar is out of action. Â ACC only have one day to respond there so must have been a holding email for a Boaging.
5. Pullar’s lawyer via her (very guarded language by the Independent Review here) emails ACC with a response to their letter of 21 December 2011.
It must have been a doozy of a response from ACC to only take one day or another holding email.
6. Pullar runs off to Phil Kitchin and away we go. Â In the process she shows Kitchin only the redacted file. Â Still playing hold’em.
In total ACC only had the following time to respond where Pullar was actually available to speak with them.
2-8th December (excluding the weekend), they sent a letter on the 9th of December – so four working days where they could have sent someone to Pullar’s house and turned over her computer to get the precise details. I guess. Â She did not at this stage full co-operate and was holding out.
Then the 22nd to the 1st of March when Pullar ran off to Kitchin. By my count five working days.
That is between ACC knowing of the privacy breach and the threat at the 1 December meeting to go to the media and when Pullar went to the media there were nine working days for ACC to settle the mess. Â Pullar was NOT available to discuss matters all Christmas break, the State Sector shuts down and key people are away that same period.
Yet Pullar had been sitting on this information herself since 5th August 2011 not even knowing what it was until October according to the report.
Yes ACC may have its issues but promptly responding to this appears not to be one when compared with the time Pullar was sitting on the information herself and did not even notice apparently until October what the attachment actually was.
She was very careful to play a poker hand with ACC of precisely what she had in terms of details. Â Her hand as I have posted.
I put it to you that Pullar received a response on 22 February 2012 to her missive of 21 February 2012 (after stewing for two months when she said she was unavailable) that she did not like and found Phil Kitchin.
She manipulated the holiday period with her own hiatus of two months where she claimed she was unavailable.
What a piece of work.