Over at Kiwiblog, DPF is very dubious about ACC's response to the Police decision that Bronwyn Pullar committed "no offence"; he blogs his scepticism, and a number of questions:
I find this situation deeply suspicious, and think the Minister should start looking for new board members. Here’s some questions I have:
If I was on the ACC Board I would be demanding management answer these questions.
- If ACC felt there was blackmail at the December 2011 meeting, why did they wait until March 2012 to complain to the Police? Surely they should have rushed down there the next day, rather than three and a half months later.
- Why did they only complain to the Police, after media stories of their privacy breach was made public? If the complaint was not made to discredit the complainant, why was the complaint made just days after the media story?
- Why did ACC make public their Police complaint? Have they ever publicised any other complaint to the Police?
- Does ACC consider a disgruntled complainant who threatens them with bad publicity is breaking the law in doing so? If so, then do they consider it against the law to criticise ACC publicly?
- Can ACC reconcile the report from their managers about the meeting, with the tape recording made of the meeting?
- Can ACC point to what part of the transcript of the meeting constitutes blackmail as they alleged?
- Considering the Police have stated that “no offence has been disclosed”, do they not accept they were wrong to complain to the Police?
- Did ACC seek any independent legal advice before deciding to lay a complaint with the Police? If not, why not?
- Does ACC condone the use of complaints to the Police in future, if a customer “pressures” staff?
- Once again, why did they wait three and a half months to complain to the Police, and only after negative media stories emerged on their privacy breach?
We agree wholeheartedly with DPF's assessment, and reckon that he has hit the nail on the head with his questions. We expect that ACC Minister Judith Collins will have some very searching questions of her own to ACC Chair John Judge and CEO Ralph Stewart. And we reckon that the first question she asks both of them should be this ; give me three good reasons why you should retain my confidence.
7 comments:
Agree wholeheartedly. As a mother and caregiver of an ACC client (medical misadventure baby), I can tell you that ACC are masters at trying to avoid the issue of their own utter incompetence by turning the spotlight back on it's clients and their so-called unacceptable behaviour. It's their mandate. I have another question to add to this - "Why are ACC not being charged with wasting Police resources??" WHY???? Jude Bignell
"Why is John Key not being charged with wasting Police resources??" WHY???? Jude Bignell
Good point.
When you say 'hit the nail on the head' and 'sold down the river' what exactly do these figures of speech in this context mean?
There's a small but significant difference Anon (10.59am); in the case of Ambrose the police were of the opinion that his actions were unlawful, but not warranting prosecution. In Pullar's case, police have been quite emphatic that no offence was committed.
Jude; thanks for the comment, and hopefully a dysfunctional ACC will get sorted.
Bring back Ross Wilson!
I could rationalise a response to most of the issues raised though admittedly they don't show best practise. I would say that about 40% of complaints to police result in'No Offence Disclosed' not always strictly correct but invariably commonsense.
Then I ask myself who do you want in charge of an Insurance outfit like ACC. A feel good Social Worker from WINZ or a hard nosed keeper of the Public Purse. Anyone who can withstand a prolonged onslaught from Michelle BOAG is a person of substance. I've no doubt the current CEO as with the current Mfat CEO were installed having in mind the Nation's financial situation. We can't afford their big-hearted (with our money) predecessors.
Post a Comment