Bronwyn Pullar

EXCLUSIVE: Brown helped Chuang get council job, gave personal reference

AC7D9301

By Stephen Cook

The Len Brown sex scandal has taken a dramatic new twist today with revelations the two-timing Auckland mayor used his influence to help the woman he was sleeping with get a job at the council-run art gallery.

Less than 72 hours after going public with details of her torrid two-year affair, 32-year-old Bevan Chuang has revealed Brown acted as a referee for her when she successfully applied for a job at the council-run art gallery back in August last year. ¬† Read more »

The Triumvirate of Terror?

Andrea Vance has written an article about my mate Simon Lusk. Good on her for tenaciously following up where others fear to tread and actually getting an interview with Simon. It is currently upland game season so for her to have got an interview during that is some feat.

Simon Lusk is one of the most intriguing figures in politics. The arch political fixer shuns the limelight, rarely venturing from his home in Havelock North to Wellington. He maintains a strict silence about his clients – mostly wannabe National MPs.

He is said to charge $10,000 to manage an electorate election campaign, and his successes are believed to include National’s senior whip Louise Upston, and MPs Chris Tremain, Nicky Wagner and Sam Lotu-Iiga.

I’m not sure Simon discounts his fees that much.

Certainly, Labour are fixated on this Right-wing bogeyman. Last year, the party’s chief whip Chris Hipkins lodged 259 written questions of ministers, asking about their communication with Mr Lusk. According to political lore, he was behind Don Brash’s unseating of ACT leader Rodney Hide.¬† Read more »

Privacy Blackmail?

This story just gets murkier and murkier. Bryan Staples stories have never added up. First off he said he’d deleted the file, then miraculously the file turned up with Lianne Dalziel. He has been as straight as Bronwyn Pullar and Michelle Boag…anyone would think Boag was down there ‘assisting’ Staples with trying to extract some hooter.

Well it looks like it has blown up in Staples’ face:

The Earthquake Commission has laid a complaint with Christchurch police that Bryan Staples, the recipient of an accidental email including private customer information, allegedly threatened to use the email to extract preferential payment of invoices.

EQC Chief Executive Ian Simpson said the action was being taken “because the recipient has gone back on his word, and in the process may have broken the law”.

“Bryan Staples told EQC today that he will retrieve the email and attachment after providing verbal and written assurances, and a signed Statutory Declaration, that he would delete them.¬† Read more »

Roughan plays catch up

John¬†Roughan¬†has written about the Pullar/Boag manufactured ACC privacy scandal and comes to the same conclusion I did months ago…in fact I think he must have read my post and just cut/pasted it.

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

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.

That is what all the fuss had been about.

The media and Pullar/Boag have a lot to answer for.

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.

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.

If the data is as indecipherable as that ACC released, it won’t matter in the slightest. It was the trivial story of the year.

That is was…but it cost Nick Smith his job because of a silly cow who flips it up for pollies in order to get what she wants…who was aided and abetted by a bully. The problem was for them is they picked on the wrong minister…and she set up crushing the leaky board on the way through. Having compromised himself he is now having to get his mates to do backflips in order to rehabilitate himself.

Someone should ask Pullar how much she has¬†received…for all her standover I’ll bet good money that she got nothing and still has got nothing.

Whaleoil Awards – Best Opposition MP

There is a real lack of talent in the opposition, but there are some standouts.

For me you can’t go past¬†Chris Hipkins for holding Hekia to account.

Chippie got really lucky this year. Nanaia was MIA so he got to ask National’s most inept minister some tricky questions about the dumb stuff that she was doing, and managed to make her look hopeless.

Unlike others in Labour all Chippie did was stick to the truth, ask simple and clear questions and keep the minister under pressure. This is not revolutionary, it is good opposition tactics, but too often Labour end up with someone useless like Trev or Grant who don’t know how to put pressure on by using the truth and resort to bullying and nastiness.

Successful opposition MPs deliver heads. Labour delivered no heads this year, Michelle Boag and Bronwyn Pullar delivered Nick Smith’s head but Labour had little to do with that. Chippie has yet to deliver Hekia‚Äôs head but he must be getting pretty close.

Surely there are other opposition MPs up for nomination.

Not Such A Good Day For Couch

Susan Couch has managed to squeeze just $300,000 from Corrections.

Susan Couch, the sole survivor of the RSA killings 11 years ago, has won a $300,000 settlement from the Corrections Department.

The announcement was made on Campbell Live tonight but both Ms Couch and her lawyer, Brian Henry, said they will fight on.

Mr Henry said the next target would ACC which had paid out almost nothing for Ms Couch’s injuries.

“It is just a closing of one chapter. We now need to get to the point where we can sue for compensation,” he said.
Ms Couch was never provided ACC compensation because she was working only part-time when she was attacked.

Brian Henry represented Couch.

Pretty simple really, he isn’t much chop as a representative.

If we have learned one thing this year is that when dealing with a government department there is only one representative worth having to arm twist, bully and use the media to your advantage – Michelle Boag.

Couch for sure is worth more assistance than David Bain and Bronwyn Pullar.

Sorry seems to be the Hardest Word

What happened to all the bluster from Little and Mallard?

Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little are bullies, and when bullies are confronted they fold….especially when all they had was an anonymous email.

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 a statement today following their meeting, the three parliamentarians said they agreed “the leak of the email Ms Boag sent to the minister and forwarded on her instructions as the responsible minister to the chairman and chief executive of ACC raised an issue of serious public concern, and that Messrs Mallard and Little were entitled to question who was responsible for that leak”.

“The parties continue to differ over whether the comments made by Messrs Mallard and Little respectively on Radio NZ implied the minister falsely assured the House that neither she nor her office was responsible for the leak.

“Messrs Mallard and Little have confirmed to Ms Collins that was not their intention and wish to make that clear publicly that in the event such meaning was taken they regret it.”

ACC Privacy Breach – Pullar Leans On Board

I will now turn briefly to the Auditor General’s ramblings. ¬†Which did not cover the privacy issues. I use the term ramblings as this report is about as nonsensical as the 100 page KPMG report in buzz words and drama. ¬†It does though report on Bronwyn Pullar’s nagging to death of Board Member John McCliskie in September 2011.

Hear the poor man’s pain getting an ear bashing as you read the report.

McCliskie does not remember much about Pullar such as being on the verge of employing her in a contract role.  He even tries to fob her off to a claims person.

Pullar, just as she was with Nick Smith was having none of it. I respect you, I would like to meet you, ignoring that she doesn’t respect his position at all. ¬†Just like Nick Smith’s or she never would have asked.

McCliskie then fobbed Pullar off on to John Judge who disapproved of meeting Pullar in the first place.

Pullar didn’t let them get off without yet another ear-bashing, sending an email to McCliskie advising ACC that they could obviously could do with her advice, you know, despite being unfit to work full-time and having had a payout from one insurance policy for what, almost a decade?

Really? A total piece of work.

Also this report brings out that Pullar tried to get Nick Smith to intervene in her case with action.

Despite Andrew Little’s poisonous assertions the Auditor General found NO influence that Pullar was after from the Board was actually applied in her favour.

So despite Pullar’s name-dropping, exercising her mouth and muscle and using the National Party extensively the Auditor General’s report has actually CLEARED the Board and the Nick Smith of influencing her claim.

Andrew Little’s year will only get worse from here.

 

ACC Privacy Breach – Timeline Of A Poker Player

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.  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.  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. ¬†In other words destroy it and prove it has been. ¬†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. ¬†Generally New Zealanders are all on holiday at that time, ACC included. ¬†The Unions wouldn’t have it otherwise.

4. Boag intervenes while Pullar is out of action.  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. ¬†In the process she shows Kitchin only the redacted file. ¬†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. ¬†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.  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.  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.

 

ACC Privacy Breach Overview – What Was Sent To Bronwyn Pullar

Forget about the tripe the mainstream media are feeding you, I have had a review commissioned of my own of the KPMG Independent Review & Auditor-General’s report and as time will allow will summarise some important points the media have missed out because they suck every word up a recidivist exploiter of insurance companies has told them via her new best friend Phil Kitchin.

For background read Jock Anderson’s excellent work on uncovering the scam pulled on Sovereign Insurance¬†in an attempt to extort¬†encourage $14 million from them¬†by using the media, in particularly this letter and read alongside.

The mainstream media need to put in a bit of time now their busy Thursday is over and actually read both these reports after they’ve taken off their rose-tinted glasses because a critical analysis says a very different thing to what they are publishing and repeating. ¬†Yes ACC are tits (and should be privatised) but in this case the “client” is a manipulative schemer and the reports are not as damning and conclusive as you read in the papers Thursday churnalising the summaries and reporting on the boring processes. ¬†What about the detail?

This post outlines (just how little) “sensitive” data was sent to Bronwyn Pullar. ¬†This is what kicked it all off. ¬†All the data showed was that you were a client of ACC’s. ¬†And this is New Zealand’s most serious breach of privacy? Hardly. ¬†The redacted columns are showed here at Appendix 5 of the Independent Review.

Yes that is right – NO real details of the claim. ¬†No gory personal age, weight, height or bra size. ¬†THIS is what all the fuss has been about. ¬†A persons name and claim number and the outcome of the case. ¬†NO further information. ¬†Repeated over and over. ¬†The only remotely damaging detail is “Sensitive Claims” written at Table 4 for the few people who are sexual abuse or assault victims. ¬†No details of their cases appears to be in the data however. ¬†This was severely overplayed.

The Independent Review team explain the data themselves in the Appendix 5

The Independent Review actually concludes Pullar made out that she had more information than there actually was as she was gloating to the ACC Managers.

“conditions” and “details” – ughm where? ¬†The redacted information above? Hello?

The report even states the damage was for “limited personal information”. Very limited by the looks.

Mainstream media need to first look precisely at what data was sent to Bronwyn Pullar and how bad this breach actually was? ¬†In effect it is a client list without any explanation or information as to what the client is with you for. ¬†The report itself said “limited personal information”.

A client who is very often hobbling or off work so very easily detected by friends and neighbours if say, oh I don’t know, hanging out on a roof doing some painting at night?

Or in Pullar’s case – she had no privacy expectation as she already had told the world her problems with ACC and Sovereign.