10. PANSY WONG (National) Link to this
to the Minister for ACC
Does she stand by her answers to questions for written answer 13711 (2007) and 14994 (2007), dated 8 August and 27 August respectively, that she is not aware of any investigation by external authorities into any of the private investigators ACC hires; if so, why?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) Link to this
Yes; neither the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) nor I are aware of any investigations by external authorities into the ACC’s contracted private investigators. As the member may be aware, the very nature of investigations can often preclude details of those investigations being discussed with other parties.
Has the Minister been informed of the off-site meeting on 28 June of her ministerial adviser and her private secretary for ACC, where information was sought about a Police Complaints Authority inquiry into Mainland Information Consultants, an ACC contractor with contracts reported to be worth $172,000; if so, what has she been told, and what was the purpose of the meeting?
If I may start with the last question the member asked, the purpose of the meeting was to give the person involved—the third party to the meeting—an opportunity to express his serious concerns and directly raise allegations. One of the allegations made was that the Police Complaints Authority was making an investigation after referral, and that was the subject of a letter to both myself and the member, and was also the subject of insinuation in the Investigate magazine. The Police Complaints Authority is entitled to investigate the actions of the police rather than of private investigators. It has not informed me of any such investigation.
Why did the Minister twice then, on the public record in answering questions, say that she was not aware of any allegation or investigation of external authorities into the private investigators hired by ACC?
Frankly, because the answer is true. The fact that there is an allegation in reputable magazines or publications such as Investigate, in letters to me, or in any other correspondence to the member does not say that that information is true. I have no information from the Police Complaints Authority or from any other external authority that gives me the ability to confirm to her that any such investigation is taking place.
Sue MoroneyWould the Minister normally publicly comment on matters that potentially are, or could be, subject to a future investigation?
No, I certainly would not. As the member who asked the primary question should know, it is not generally appropriate for a Minister to comment publicly on such matters, because such comment has the potential to prejudice the outcomes or the process of an investigation. [ Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I take offence at the insinuation of lying to the House that was made by the member Sandra Goudie, and I ask you to ask her to withdraw and apologise. The statements I have made in written and oral answers are factually correct.
Madam SPEAKER
Sandra GoudieI did not hear what the comment was, but the Minister asked that you withdraw and apologise for implications of dishonesty. The Minister did not repeat exactly what you said, but from what I could understand, she was saying that you insinuated in your comment that she was lying. If you did do that, then I ask you to withdraw and apologise. Are you saying that you did not make that comment or insinuation?
Hon Harry Duynhoven Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think this raises a very interesting issue that you may like to consider and come back to the House on. The word “liar” has long been ruled out in this House. To state in the way that the member did, immediately after the Minister’s comments to the House, that those comments were incorrect by inference implies absolutely that the Minister was lying. I think that that and the way that it was done may be something you may like to reflect on. You may like to give us a ruling for the future as to how one can disagree with what a member says without actually being in the position of saying that the member is being untruthful or is lying. I think it is a very interesting issue to consider.
Gerry BrownleeI do not think there is anything for you to consider here, at all. The comment from Sandra Goudie was quite reasonable, in the circumstances. It is patently evident from the—[ Interruption]
That is not very satisfactory, Madam Speaker. You were about to make a ruling on your order in the House, and Mr Peters has circumvented that.
My point of order is simply that it is patently obvious from the answers given by the Hon Ruth Dyson that she was aware of the circumstances. That is undisputable. So for Sandra Goudie to say the Minister knew is to tell the truth.
I think the issue about lying or not telling the truth is being confused a little bit. The general rule is that if a member thinks there is a personal reflection on him or her and requires another member to withdraw and apologise, then that is normally what happens. In this instance the Minister did believe a personal reflection was made. She asked for it to be withdrawn and for an apology, so I ask the member to do that. There is no implication about dishonesty. That is the normal rule. If a member takes that position, then the other member withdraws and apologises.
At the risk of behaving a little like a head prefect or something, there was an issue with Mr Peters.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Mr Brownlee got to his feet and said to you that there was nothing in that point of order at all. That is a complete statement—a conclusion at the end of an argument. That is what one usually leads to when one makes out an argument as to why something is not a point of order. That being the case, I said: “If that’s the case, sit down, then.”
What I actually said—and it may have been difficult for Mr Peters to hear down there—was that there was nothing for Madam Speaker to consider here, and at that point I was interrupted. I think I am surely entitled, on a point of order, to explain what it is about.
I think we have resolved the point of order. I make the point that members are on their last warning about interjecting on points of order. That exactly illustrates the problems that arise.
Peter BrownIs the Minister aware that there have been fraud investigations into both claimants and providers on a seemingly never-ending basis, sometimes over several years, resulting in several cases, if not the majority, where there was nothing found—zilch; not even a whiff of fraud—and will the Minister inform the House whether she condones that practice?
As the member knows, the issue of fraud investigations was the subject of an independent review by Doug Martin and associates recently. I welcomed the recommendations in that review. I think it was a rigorous review and the recommendations clearly indicated that although the rest of ACC has moved on since the time of the National-led Government of the 1990s and its attitude of secrecy and intrusion, the fraud unit had not. I welcome the opportunity for the board and ACC management to bring that part of ACC in line with the rest of it.
What, then, does the Minister make of the letter written by ACC and dated 9 July that stated it was aware of allegations against that private investigator and would rely on any findings made by the Police Complaints Authority before deciding on whether to continue the contract with Mainland Information Consultants, and will she hold anyone to account for that information breakdown to her?
I would highly recommend that the member read the correspondence she attempts to quote from before she misquotes it, because it does not say that at all. It says: “ACC is aware of allegations that have been made in relation to Mainland Information Consultants and will rely on any findings made by the Police Complaints Authority.” Mainland Information Consultants has private investigators working for it. The Police Complaints Authority cannot, under its statute—the Police Complaints Authority Act 1988—investigate anyone other than the police. It cannot investigate private investigators; that is the role of the Registrar of Private Investigators and Security Guards. If the member wants to ask me whether I know of anybody who is investigating the police, then she should ask that question—she asked about private investigators. Just to put it on the record, I do not know whether the Police Complaints Authority has been investigating the police, either.
Noting the Minister’s earlier answer to the question I posed, if I were to supply her with the details of a never-ending case of fraud investigations over several years—in this case into a provider—that has resulted in absolutely nothing except the individual being overcome by stress and anguish, is she prepared to look into the matter fairly and to examine it in detail?
I would be absolutely prepared to pass it on to the chief executive, who is responsible for operational matters.
I seek the leave of the House to table the letter written by ACC that stated it was aware of allegations and would rely on any findings—