ACCforum: Official Information request-IT Sweep - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 9 Pages +
  • « First
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Official Information request-IT Sweep the secret emails in your file

#141 User is offline   Campy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1386
  • Joined: 15-May 10
  • LocationAuckland Regional super city

Posted 19 October 2014 - 10:14 AM

View Postnot their victim, on 18 October 2014 - 04:07 PM, said:

all sensitive claimants

all claimants who have had files with the SFO

and all involved with acc and winz privacy breaches,

should fill out the template at 112 IMMEDIATELY, AND SEND TO THE OMBUDSMAN


Privacy breach victims to sue ACC


DAVID GADD AND MARIKA HILLLast updated 05:00 30/09/2012



Sex abuse survivors are planning to sue ACC to force a significantly boosted payout for breaching their privacy in the ongoing Bronwyn Pullar whistleblower saga.

ACC sent apology letters in June to sensitive-claims clients and offered to pay them $250 if they agreed to stay silent, after one of New Zealand's biggest privacy breaches in August last year.

The "insulting" offer came after ACC mistakenly released the names and details of 6500 claimants, including 250 sensitive-claims clients who are victims of sexual abuse and violent crimes, to claimant Pullar.

Wellington lawyer John Miller, a specialist in taking on ACC, said more than 100 claimants affected by the massive Pullar breach had approached him to take the case. He said those wanting to pursue ACC were sensitive claimants who generally had long simmering feelings of being poorly treated by the ACC system.

Although a claimant with a normal injury could shrug off the privacy breach, for sensitive claimants "this is the last straw".

"It's a corrosive environment they are in with ACC, frankly. The people I have spoken to, they are insulted by $250, it is a derisory amount for the torment they have gone through."

Worse was ACC's requirement that claimants sign a confidentially agreement if they took the payment. "They feel they are being told ‘now go away and shut up and sign a document to say you are going to shut up forever more'."

He said that although technically class action claims were not possible in New Zealand, the process worked with one claim taken and if it won it set a precedent. ACC would be asked to settle with everyone, or face losing case after case with legal costs compounding the settlement payouts.

He said the process had worked before and usually ACC saw sense.

Miller would not be drawn on what level of compensation would satisfy claimants, but said past privacy breaches had won payouts of anything from $2000 to $40,000. It depended on the severity of the consequences.

In 2003 he said ACC paid $8000 for sending a man's earnings details to his wife, resulting in divorce because he had kept his income secret from her.

The Dominion Post revealed in July that ACC paid out almost $50,000 for eight privacy breaches in the past three years.

However, the government agency refused to divulge the amount of each payment.

Following an investigation in the Pullar blunder, the privacy commissioner found that systemic weaknesses at ACC and an "almost cavalier" attitude towards claimants' information led to the breach.


The privacy breach led to ACC introducing strict privacy policies and saw an exodus of top staff.

ACC chairman John Judge, chief executive Ralph Stewart and board members John McCliskie, Rob Campbell and Murray Hilder all departed from the agency.

ACC has so far refused to comment publicly on the financial settlement payments.

- Sunday Star Times


1

#142 User is offline   Campy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1386
  • Joined: 15-May 10
  • LocationAuckland Regional super city

Posted 19 October 2014 - 10:20 AM

View Postnot their victim, on 18 October 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:


Complaint turns up heat on Collins

</h2>PHIL KITCHINLast updated 05:00 30/08/2014 Share89
Posted Image


JUDITH COLLINS:Politics




An ACC whistleblower has complained to the privacy commissioner alleging Cabinet minister Judith Collins leaked confidential but false details to WhaleOil blogger Cameron Slater.

Bronwyn Pullar filed her complaint after reading in Nicky Hager's Dirty Politics claims of Slater giving a friend - a former sex worker - false details about Pullar that the blogger said he got after speaking to Collins.

Privacy Commissioner John Edwards, whose office is overseen by Collins as the justice minister, said yesterday that he was assessing the complaint.

The complaint heaps more pressure on the embattled Collins, who is on a "final final warning" from Prime Minister John Key after admitting she passed details about public servant Simon Pleasants to Slater, who then published material on his blog, prompting death threats against the bureaucrat.

Pullar caused severe embarrassment for Collins, who is also ACC minister, when she blew the whistle in 2012 on a massive ACC privacy breach involving her being sent confidential details on 6500 claimants, including sexual abuse victims.

Dirty Politics claims the day the story broke, Slater told the former prostitute - who was concerned her details were part of the ACC breach - that he would talk to Collins for "the real story".

In two sets of messages between Slater and the ex-prostitute, Slater said he had spoken to Collins, and he provided his friend with then-unknown information about the whistleblower, the book claims.

Particularly damaging for Collins are the book's claims that Slater's statements show that he knew who Pullar was, that she had tried to extort ACC and that she was likely to be prosecuted.

At the time Dirty Politics claims he was stating this to the ex-sex worker, ACC had not laid any extortion complaint to police and Pullar's request for anonymity had been respected by ACC.

If Slater's statements to the former prostitute as detailed in the book are correct, Collins could face serious trouble for leaking Pullar's name and false allegations of extortion against her before the minister had received any final written reports from her ministry.

However, Slater now insists the key details were not leaked by Collins.

Slater yesterday confirmed he spoke to Collins but said she only provided him with details about the privacy breach to allay his ex-sex worker friend's fears.

He said Collins gave him no information about Pullar and allegations of extortion, and that he got that information from other sources.
Collins side-stepped questions about what she told Slater and said she was unaware of any complaint to the privacy commissioner against her by Pullar.

"If there is one, I would be unable to comment," Collins said.

"There are complaints about the Hager book and stolen emails before the police and the privacy commissioner and it would be inappropriate to comment further."

When Pullar first blew the whistle on ACC she was not identified, and the corporation was told she wished to remain anonymous so she was not deluged with calls from ACC clients asking if they were part of the privacy breach.

The scandal forced ACC into making thousands of apologies and Collins faced snap debates in Parliament.

Three days after the story broke and after crisis meetings involving Collins, then chairman John Judge and then chief executive Ralph Stewart, ACC hit back at Pullar.

ACC published a report claiming Pullar tried to extort the corporation at a December 2011 meeting held between Pullar, her support person and former National Party president Michelle Boag, and two senior ACC managers. ACC did not ask Pullar for her side of the story before making the allegations public and then repeating them to police, who launched an inquiry.

Slater was then fed a memo from Boag to Collins which he gave to a Sunday newspaper reporter and Pullar's name became public knowledge.

Slater went on the attack on his blog, falsely accusing Pullar and Boag of blackmail.

But ACC and Slater did not know Pullar had a tape recording of the meeting that showed the allegations were false.

Correspondence with the privacy commissioner's office obtained by The Dominion Post shows the commissioner admitting his office initially "overlooked" Pullar's complaint made on August 15.

The commissioner last week ruled out investigating a Green Party complaint that Collins leaked Pleasants' name to Slater.

He said he would need a complaint from Pleasants, who has declined to lodge one.

Edwards' assistant commissioner of investigations, Mike Flahive, told Pullar on Wednesday he was "assessing" her complaint to consider what action to take.

"Your patience would be appreciated," Flahive said.

NEW COMPLAINT

The latest complaint that ACC and Justice Minister Judith Collins breached ACC whistleblower Bronwyn Pullar's privacy is different to one that dragged Collins into an earlier investigation by the privacy commissioner.

That investigation was launched when a memo from former National Party president Michelle Boag to Collins clarifying Puller's reasons for blowing the whistle was leaked to a reporter. The leak led to Pullar - who has a brain injury - coming under siege from media as ACC simultaneously falsely claimed she'd tried to extort the corporation.

Investigators trawled through Collins' office and computer and questioned ACC chairman John Judge and then chief executive Ralph Stewart to try to find the source of the leak. Collins was accused of being the leaker, which she correctly denied.

The investigation failed to find the leak but informed sources have confirmed to The Dominion Post that the leak was from one senior board member to another, who gave it to a blogger, who passed it to Slater, who gave it to the reporter.

HOW IT UNFOLDED

March 13, 2012 - The Dominion Post reveals ACC breached the privacy of 6500 ACC clients, including rape victims, by sending their details to an unnamed ACC client.

March 13 - According to Dirty Politics, WhaleOil blogger Cameron Slater tells an ex-prostitute friend he would ring ACC Minister Judith Collins to "get the real story".

March 14 - Slater tells the ex-prostitute the whistleblower was a woman who tried to blackmail ACC and was likely to be prosecuted for extortion, Dirty Politics claims. That afternoon, minister Collins attends a meeting with ACC chief executive Ralph Stewart and chairman John Judge. In an affidavit later, Judge said Collins "very strongly" pushed for police to be told about threats allegedly made by Pullar at a meeting with ACC on December 2011.

March 15 - The word "blackmail" is first publicly discussed. Collins tells Radio Live she had oral reports on the December meeting but wanted written reports.

March 15 - Two ACC managers from the December meeting provide their official account, which contains no allegations of blackmail or extortion.

March 16 - A "situation report" is published on ACC's website accusing the whistleblower of extortion.

March 17 - The book claims Slater tells the ex-prostitute he knows who the whistleblower is and that she will get "rat f...ed hard."

March 18 - A Sunday newspaper names the whistleblower, Bronwyn Pullar, after Slater provides a leaked email from ACC.

March 19 - ACC makes a written complaint to police about alleged extortion.

April 30 - The Dominion Post reveals Pullar recorded the critical meeting at which ACC claimed she'd tried to extort the corporation. The recording showed ACC had made false allegations. Police swiftly shut down their investigation.


- The Dominion Post






The chronological list in blue says it all.


2

#143 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 19 October 2014 - 10:31 AM

Thanks for that Campy

By the way I do agree that the sensitive claimants were paid a pittance to keep them quite, and it has more effect on them than on the rest of us and as I say my full name address and lies were all over LF at the time about me, so really their is more damage done before the leak of the file to Bronwyn.

if I could be sure that Slater had a copy of that document then of course I would think there has been a betrayal to me personally, as I have a apology letter from them that I was on the leaked document three times, and was assured that it would not be going anywhere other than where it had been, Puller.

So someone has had it and leaked it again. I know the paper had it to do the story, and that ACC Minister could get it as head of ACC at the time. But that does not say she leaked it to Slater. I have seen nothing that shows me that Slater actually had it.

I have asked often, but no actual reply. I will believe someone if they say it is the Dirty politics book with the e-mails that prove that to be so. But I refuse to run into anything without prove of what I ask.

I personally think that Key is being too kind to Collins by only looking at the SFO affair. I think the harassment of the public servant and the leaking of the document from ACC should also be under investigation, but only if their is proof that the ACC Minister was the one that leaked it to Slater, or the need to know who leaked it to Slater. But I don't know if Slater had actually had a copy of it, yet.

I will not make a decision, let alone take steps of action, until I have proof to convince myself that it is the right thing to do. I am that hard on myself. I refuse to waste money and effort on something I cannot prove that the Level of evidence of a discrepancy is in my hands.

Cheers Mini
0

#144 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 19 October 2014 - 10:49 AM

View PostCampy, on 19 October 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

The chronological list in blue says it all.


March 18:

I think the document that is spoken of, is the letter naming Puller, that Boag had written to Collins. Not the list of the document we are talking about that Slater is supposed to have had.

I have had no direct correlation of the fact that this instance was anything other that what I have surmised, or that Slater ever had the list of our names.

it should be in the dirty politics book, but I can't get that until Tuesday. And even then house repairs are being paid for, so every dollar counts. I have to determine, how buying the book will help me, if it will put any enlightenment in my life and if it will give me enough information to make money. If not, then it is not worth it.

Please don't think I am trying to be anything other than 'the devils advocate here'. We all have to look at things as they are and ask ourselves what we want the outcome to be and what are the chances!!! having a 'devils advocate', is the best I can offer, until some questions get answered.

I will look at everything that comes through here and will certainly assist in any way I can, when the time is right.

Mini
0

#145 User is offline   Campy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1386
  • Joined: 15-May 10
  • LocationAuckland Regional super city

Posted 19 October 2014 - 11:01 AM

You can purchase the Kindle edition of 'Dirty Politics' online for a fraction of the hard copy price. Kindle software is also free to download. As you say, every dollar counts.

View PostMINI, on 19 October 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:

March 18:

I think the document that is spoken of, is the letter naming Puller, that Boag had written to Collins. Not the list of the document we are talking about that Slater is supposed to have had.

I have had no direct correlation of the fact that this instance was anything other that what I have surmised, or that Slater ever had the list of our names.

it should be in the dirty politics book, but I can't get that until Tuesday. And even then house repairs are being paid for, so every dollar counts. I have to determine, how buying the book will help me, if it will put any enlightenment in my life and if it will give me enough information to make money. If not, then it is not worth it.

Please don't think I am trying to be anything other than 'the devils advocate here'. We all have to look at things as they are and ask ourselves what we want the outcome to be and what are the chances!!! having a 'devils advocate', is the best I can offer, until some questions get answered.

I will look at everything that comes through here and will certainly assist in any way I can, when the time is right.

Mini

1

#146 User is offline   Campy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1386
  • Joined: 15-May 10
  • LocationAuckland Regional super city

Posted 19 October 2014 - 11:08 AM

Yes quite right Mini. You'd be aware that at least one of Nottinghams other prey was both a physical AND sensitive claimant. So to have the Nottinghams attack as well has devastated several people who are disabled and also living in fear. Something not well appreciated by those whom dismiss your concerns, to "IGNORE". When dealing with rape victims, a common thread in their experiences was that they too were conditioned to "IGNORE". We now realise of course that such behaviour is interpreted by violators as consent to accelerate the abuse. Therefore you are quite wise when dealing with bullies such as the Nottinghams renown for their misogyny and violence, to stand up to them.

View PostMINI, on 19 October 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

Thanks for that Campy

By the way I do agree that the sensitive claimants were paid a pittance to keep them quite, and it has more effect on them than on the rest of us and as I say my full name address and lies were all over LF at the time about me, so really their is more damage done before the leak of the file to Bronwyn.

if I could be sure that Slater had a copy of that document then of course I would think there has been a betrayal to me personally, as I have a apology letter from them that I was on the leaked document three times, and was assured that it would not be going anywhere other than where it had been, Puller.

So someone has had it and leaked it again. I know the paper had it to do the story, and that ACC Minister could get it as head of ACC at the time. But that does not say she leaked it to Slater. I have seen nothing that shows me that Slater actually had it.

I have asked often, but no actual reply. I will believe someone if they say it is the Dirty politics book with the e-mails that prove that to be so. But I refuse to run into anything without prove of what I ask.

I personally think that Key is being too kind to Collins by only looking at the SFO affair. I think the harassment of the public servant and the leaking of the document from ACC should also be under investigation, but only if their is proof that the ACC Minister was the one that leaked it to Slater, or the need to know who leaked it to Slater. But I don't know if Slater had actually had a copy of it, yet.

I will not make a decision, let alone take steps of action, until I have proof to convince myself that it is the right thing to do. I am that hard on myself. I refuse to waste money and effort on something I cannot prove that the Level of evidence of a discrepancy is in my hands.

Cheers Mini

2

#147 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 19 October 2014 - 11:38 AM

View PostCampy, on 19 October 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

Yes quite right Mini. You'd be aware that at least one of Nottinghams other prey was both a physical AND sensitive claimant. So to have the Nottinghams attack as well has devastated several people who are disabled and also living in fear. Something not well appreciated by those whom dismiss your concerns, to "IGNORE". When dealing with rape victims, a common thread in their experiences was that they too were conditioned to "IGNORE". We now realise of course that such behaviour is interpreted by violators as consent to accelerate the abuse. Therefore you are quite wise when dealing with bullies such as the Nottinghams renown for their misogyny and violence, to stand up to them.


Thanks Campy

I try to keep my life in perspective otherwise it could all come unravelled as I too have Mental and Phyiscal. But it is not sexual Mental thank god. But it is probably just as traumatic, especially at the time when it caused me to be depressive. I appreciate the support I get from all those on forum, it is much appreciated.

Thanks Mini
0

#148 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 22 October 2014 - 12:18 PM

THE FORMER "HONOURABLE" J COLLINS

is the person who BLOCKED CLASS ACTION


im not sure what J Miller said was an actual fact.....

I think you can still take a form of class action....

all will be revealed in due course.....however, it would mean one of us would need to collate real names, injury details and the harm the privacy breach did TO ALL OF US.....WITHOUT FRAPPERIES....
0

#149 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 22 October 2014 - 12:22 PM

MINI

Slater was able to read ALL THE NAMES AND DETAILS ON THE SPREADSHEET...BEFORE IT WAS REDACTED AND HE PUBLISHED IT. thats why the former prostitute rang him, to see if her name was on it!

I know you are busy with reviews etc....yet, facts have been provided to you, as they were at the time of the breach....you chose to slag B Pullar off, instead of take on board what was being revealed!!!!
0

#150 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 22 October 2014 - 12:24 PM

http://www.stuff.co....breach-timeline
0

#151 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 22 October 2014 - 02:02 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 22 October 2014 - 12:22 PM, said:

MINI

Slater was able to read ALL THE NAMES AND DETAILS ON THE SPREADSHEET...BEFORE IT WAS REDACTED AND HE PUBLISHED IT. thats why the former prostitute rang him, to see if her name was on it!

I know you are busy with reviews etc....yet, facts have been provided to you, as they were at the time of the breach....you chose to slag B Pullar off, instead of take on board what was being revealed!!!!


I can only take on so much at any given time. I was taking Lauda Finem and Accforum to task at the time. I think. if not I was going thru the steps of the High Court to get Interest on my w/c at the time. Both very big and indepth investigations for me.

As you have been told they are both needing to have extra work done on them at the moment, while I am trying to fit in two Reviews and one trip away to g'daugthers dance recital in other city. My muscles are so overloaded with typing and photocopying they have never been so sore in a long time. So you will have to forgive me that I must priortise what I do, when I take on anything extra.

Surely some one would have taken a photocopy of Slaters publication of the 6500 names being published at the time. That is all I would wish as proof that he had it and published it. In that case of course I would opt to do something about it.

I still consider that the decent thing to do at the time of the first vist to the ACC would be to return the document, because then the happening as above, (the document getting into others hands and it getting published) could not have happened, and I have an apology letter from ACC that says that would not happen.
After i did my investigation to see how it could harm me given those facts, I decided that I wouldnt do anything, which could not have hurt anyone at all. My 'slagging off Puller' at the time, as you say, is nothing more that me saying if I were her I would have had the document in my hands to give back, and I still believe it was why the police were called in. I have worked in the public service a long time, so I like to think I understand why they do things, good or bad.

In this case it is not unusal that they would think the worst of someone who didnt hand in the document asap. That is why they could accuse her of wanting some sort of monetary renumeration before she would give it back.

Of course they failed, because she took a tape recording of the meeting, and nothing on it mentioned what would be needed to prove that. They Boag and Puller have been in politics probably as long as I have been in Public Service.

We have all seen what politics is like haven't we??. Dont think that only Collins will be like this. Pullar already had the ACC minister at the time letter on her file. Now who of us has the likes of that?? Lets face it, it is not what you know, it is who you know and has been for years, but my background is the the greatest integrity in all matters of work life are essential when dealing with the public or you are out the door. This was not a problem to me as I come from parents who lived their lives, with honesty, integrity and responsibility, being part of everyday life.

Therefore the bottom line is and I still believe this, is the original document should have gone back at the first meeting. I have a right to say this, because I am named on it three times. BUT if it were me, I would have asked for a receipt for exactly what it was I was passing over and what it meant ie it was a breach of privacy of x amount of people that you were handing back. I would probably have kept a copy of it to ensure that I had backup of what had happened. After all we cover backside when in a complicated situation such as this.

But looking at it now and taking that I believe in karma, this is probably how it was meant to be, as it is showing the world, should they care, just how the parliamentary system works, (or doesn't work), and this is the best thing that could have happened re: the leakage of the document. It shines the bright light right on ACC and the minister at two different times and what they will do to get the outcome that they wish. They will even, use the services of unsavory characters to plot a path that affects others lives causing harm. It gives support to our collective yell: That ACC do not give a dam about us, we are only a money collection scheme to them.

AND it could not have happened at a better time, in that the Auditor General has said in their recent review of ACC and privacy, and the outcome of the United Nations sending message to the govt to get there act together re: our right to justice and the rest.

AT the moment we are collectively very strong. Yet still individual. Peoples individuality is to be respected and just because we do not agree all the time, is not a bad thing. It is a good think and so long as what I want or would do doesn't hurt you, what does it matter that I disagree, I wasn't the only one who thought the document with my name three times on it, should have gone back straight away.

Now I must go and do some postage. Or I will be late for review.

And I say to you again NTV if you ever need any assistance with you own ACC stuff, just let me know. I don't promise you anything, except my ability to play 'devils advocate' very well.

Mini
0

#152 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 22 October 2014 - 02:12 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 22 October 2014 - 12:24 PM, said:



March the 18th - This would be the letter/Memo from Boag to Ms Collins wouldn't it??

Where does it say here that Slater posted a redacted documentation of the naming of the 2650 people, being the leaked document?

Remember I am just asking, I am not trying to start a war.

Mini
0

#153 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 22 October 2014 - 02:57 PM

grab a copy of dirty politics from the library...

its an easy read...took me one day!!!

then read the endnotes CAREFULLY....


when I told you my identity was stolen (on the only ""proper conversation we had by phone)...and that acc have 2 ird numbers in my file...you called me a liar!!!

so thanks for the offer, but no thanks...


im right up with the play....locally, regionally and globally thanks...

and again, I know THE FACTS of the Privacy Breach...as stated all the way through, there was more to that than met the eye....
0

#154 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 22 October 2014 - 04:14 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 22 October 2014 - 02:57 PM, said:

grab a copy of dirty politics from the library...

its an easy read...took me one day!!!

then read the endnotes CAREFULLY....


when I told you my identity was stolen (on the only ""proper conversation we had by phone)...and that acc have 2 ird numbers in my file...you called me a liar!!!

so thanks for the offer, but no thanks...


im right up with the play....locally, regionally and globally thanks...

and again, I know THE FACTS of the Privacy Breach...as stated all the way through, there was more to that than met the eye....


About your two IRD numbers. I have no idea why I would tell you that is impossible because I have known of a Manager who actually had the same thing and ended up in court, after ripping off others refunds into the second IRD numbers Bank account in the same name as the taxpayer.

These actual cases which hit the public papers are not easy to forget, so I cannot see myself giving anyone that information.

I hope you have it fixed now. As it is a clear risk factor for you and your entitlements.

In all you amenities you have open too you, Maybe you have an investigator who could write to IRD on your behalf to find out what bank accounts are attached to the number that is not yours, to see if anyone has been using it to lift money meant for you, but being shafted out.

As far as the facts of the privacy breach to Ms Puller of our name/s, if there is more to that than mets the eye of course I would have no idea I am not a confident of anyone regarding this and I wouldn't expect to be as I made a determination not to take mine any further, when it first happened and after doing my own investigation into how it would hurt me and having that my name was in LF and in here, the ACC leak for less of a problem for me than these two are and have been.

These are facts that will not go away until I make them and that is a lot of hard effort. Hopefully some thing good come out of yours, mine and Ms Pullers. Different directions they maybe going, but all caused by the necessity to be on ACC.

Mini
0

#155 User is offline   Rosey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1808
  • Joined: 25-December 09
  • LocationHamilton

Posted 23 October 2014 - 12:21 PM

Dirty Politics: How attack politics is poisoning New Zealand's political environment [Kindle Edition]
Nicky Hager (Author) 4.5 out of 5 stars See all reviews (67 customer reviews) Kindle Price: $19.84 includes free international wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet Free Kindle Reading App Anybody can read Kindle books—even without a Kindle device—with the FREE Kindle app for smartphones, tablets and computers.





View PostMINI, on 22 October 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

About your two IRD numbers. I have no idea why I would tell you that is impossible because I have known of a Manager who actually had the same thing and ended up in court, after ripping off others refunds into the second IRD numbers Bank account in the same name as the taxpayer.

These actual cases which hit the public papers are not easy to forget, so I cannot see myself giving anyone that information.

I hope you have it fixed now. As it is a clear risk factor for you and your entitlements.

In all you amenities you have open too you, Maybe you have an investigator who could write to IRD on your behalf to find out what bank accounts are attached to the number that is not yours, to see if anyone has been using it to lift money meant for you, but being shafted out.

As far as the facts of the privacy breach to Ms Puller of our name/s, if there is more to that than mets the eye of course I would have no idea I am not a confident of anyone regarding this and I wouldn't expect to be as I made a determination not to take mine any further, when it first happened and after doing my own investigation into how it would hurt me and having that my name was in LF and in here, the ACC leak for less of a problem for me than these two are and have been.

These are facts that will not go away until I make them and that is a lot of hard effort. Hopefully some thing good come out of yours, mine and Ms Pullers. Different directions they maybe going, but all caused by the necessity to be on ACC.

Mini


That a Manager ended up in court, after ripping off others refunds into the second IRD numbers Bank account in the same name as the taxpayer is disgusting. I hope NTV is aware of what bank accounts are attached to the number that is not hers, to see if anyone has been using it to lift money meant for her. Scary to thing who else could this be happening to?
2

#156 User is offline   Rosey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1808
  • Joined: 25-December 09
  • LocationHamilton

Posted 23 October 2014 - 12:23 PM

If you can't get out to the library follow the link to download your Kindle version here.

View Postnot their victim, on 22 October 2014 - 02:57 PM, said:

grab a copy of dirty politics from the library...

its an easy read...took me one day!!!

then read the endnotes CAREFULLY....


when I told you my identity was stolen (on the only ""proper conversation we had by phone)...and that acc have 2 ird numbers in my file...you called me a liar!!!

so thanks for the offer, but no thanks...


im right up with the play....locally, regionally and globally thanks...

and again, I know THE FACTS of the Privacy Breach...as stated all the way through, there was more to that than met the eye....

1

#157 User is offline   Rosey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1808
  • Joined: 25-December 09
  • LocationHamilton

Posted 23 October 2014 - 12:41 PM

Its really a very cruel and unnecessary "karma: for sensitive claimants to have names on that list. Afterwards I found out one of my neighbour's girls had been named and she was beside herself. So were her family.

Privacy breach victims to sue ACC

DAVID GADD AND MARIKA HILLLast updated 05:00 30/09/2012
Sex abuse survivors are planning to sue ACC to force a significantly boosted payout for breaching their privacy in the ongoing Bronwyn Pullar whistleblower saga.

ACC sent apology letters in June to sensitive-claims clients and offered to pay them $250 if they agreed to stay silent, after one of New Zealand's biggest privacy breaches in August last year.

The "insulting" offer came after ACC mistakenly released the names and details of 6500 claimants, including 250 sensitive-claims clients who are victims of sexual abuse and violent crimes, to claimant Pullar.

Wellington lawyer John Miller, a specialist in taking on ACC, said more than 100 claimants affected by the massive Pullar breach had approached him to take the case. He said those wanting to pursue ACC were sensitive claimants who generally had long simmering feelings of being poorly treated by the ACC system.

Although a claimant with a normal injury could shrug off the privacy breach, for sensitive claimants "this is the last straw".

"It's a corrosive environment they are in with ACC, frankly. The people I have spoken to, they are insulted by $250, it is a derisory amount for the torment they have gone through."

Worse was ACC's requirement that claimants sign a confidentially agreement if they took the payment. "They feel they are being told ‘now go away and shut up and sign a document to say you are going to shut up forever more'."

He said that although technically class action claims were not possible in New Zealand, the process worked with one claim taken and if it won it set a precedent. ACC would be asked to settle with everyone, or face losing case after case with legal costs compounding the settlement payouts.

He said the process had worked before and usually ACC saw sense.

Miller would not be drawn on what level of compensation would satisfy claimants, but said past privacy breaches had won payouts of anything from $2000 to $40,000. It depended on the severity of the consequences.

The privacy breach led to ACC introducing strict privacy policies and saw an exodus of top staff.In 2003 he said ACC paid $8000 for sending a man's earnings details to his wife, resulting in divorce because he had kept his income secret from her.

The Dominion Post revealed in July that ACC paid out almost $50,000 for eight privacy breaches in the past three years.

However, the government agency refused to divulge the amount of each payment.

Following an investigation in the Pullar blunder, the privacy commissioner found that systemic weaknesses at ACC and an "almost cavalier" attitude towards claimants' information led to the breach.


ACC chairman John Judge, chief executive Ralph Stewart and board members John McCliskie, Rob Campbell and Murray Hilder all departed from the agency.

ACC has so far refused to comment publicly on the financial settlement payments.


- Sunday Star Times





View PostMINI, on 22 October 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

I can only take on so much at any given time. I was taking Lauda Finem and Accforum to task at the time. I think. if not I was going thru the steps of the High Court to get Interest on my w/c at the time. Both very big and indepth investigations for me.

As you have been told they are both needing to have extra work done on them at the moment, while I am trying to fit in two Reviews and one trip away to g'daugthers dance recital in other city. My muscles are so overloaded with typing and photocopying they have never been so sore in a long time. So you will have to forgive me that I must priortise what I do, when I take on anything extra.

Surely some one would have taken a photocopy of Slaters publication of the 6500 names being published at the time. That is all I would wish as proof that he had it and published it. In that case of course I would opt to do something about it.

I still consider that the decent thing to do at the time of the first vist to the ACC would be to return the document, because then the happening as above, (the document getting into others hands and it getting published) could not have happened, and I have an apology letter from ACC that says that would not happen.
After i did my investigation to see how it could harm me given those facts, I decided that I wouldnt do anything, which could not have hurt anyone at all. My 'slagging off Puller' at the time, as you say, is nothing more that me saying if I were her I would have had the document in my hands to give back, and I still believe it was why the police were called in. I have worked in the public service a long time, so I like to think I understand why they do things, good or bad.

In this case it is not unusal that they would think the worst of someone who didnt hand in the document asap. That is why they could accuse her of wanting some sort of monetary renumeration before she would give it back.

Of course they failed, because she took a tape recording of the meeting, and nothing on it mentioned what would be needed to prove that. They Boag and Puller have been in politics probably as long as I have been in Public Service.

We have all seen what politics is like haven't we??. Dont think that only Collins will be like this. Pullar already had the ACC minister at the time letter on her file. Now who of us has the likes of that?? Lets face it, it is not what you know, it is who you know and has been for years, but my background is the the greatest integrity in all matters of work life are essential when dealing with the public or you are out the door. This was not a problem to me as I come from parents who lived their lives, with honesty, integrity and responsibility, being part of everyday life.

Therefore the bottom line is and I still believe this, is the original document should have gone back at the first meeting. I have a right to say this, because I am named on it three times. BUT if it were me, I would have asked for a receipt for exactly what it was I was passing over and what it meant ie it was a breach of privacy of x amount of people that you were handing back. I would probably have kept a copy of it to ensure that I had backup of what had happened. After all we cover backside when in a complicated situation such as this.

But looking at it now and taking that I believe in karma, this is probably how it was meant to be, as it is showing the world, should they care, just how the parliamentary system works, (or doesn't work), and this is the best thing that could have happened re: the leakage of the document. It shines the bright light right on ACC and the minister at two different times and what they will do to get the outcome that they wish. They will even, use the services of unsavory characters to plot a path that affects others lives causing harm. It gives support to our collective yell: That ACC do not give a dam about us, we are only a money collection scheme to them.

AND it could not have happened at a better time, in that the Auditor General has said in their recent review of ACC and privacy, and the outcome of the United Nations sending message to the govt to get there act together re: our right to justice and the rest.

AT the moment we are collectively very strong. Yet still individual. Peoples individuality is to be respected and just because we do not agree all the time, is not a bad thing. It is a good think and so long as what I want or would do doesn't hurt you, what does it matter that I disagree, I wasn't the only one who thought the document with my name three times on it, should have gone back straight away.

Now I must go and do some postage. Or I will be late for review.

And I say to you again NTV if you ever need any assistance with you own ACC stuff, just let me know. I don't promise you anything, except my ability to play 'devils advocate' very well.

Mini

1

#158 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 23 October 2014 - 03:42 PM

View PostRosey, on 23 October 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:



Thanks Rosey that is very kind of you although I do not use my bank accounts on line, for reasons of which I have just been speaking. The risk of being used by others is too great.

Mini
0

#159 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 23 October 2014 - 03:55 PM

Rosey

fully aware of what acc has done ....NOW!!!

didnt until I got the Party Status File

acc stated I was receiving IA...so i asked them which bank account.......

oh dear....seems like im not getting IA after all.......funny that.....I should be BUT ACC confirmed there has been NO MONEY GONE INTO NTV'S BANK ACCOUNT......NOT EVEN THE BIG $$$ AWARDED IN COURT!!!!

so who has got my money???.........

dirty politics aint the half of it.....

ITS FILTHY.......

no wonder theres a Media Ban on me! lol

ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ANYONE???
0

#160 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 23 October 2014 - 03:58 PM

View PostRosey, on 23 October 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

Its really a very cruel and unnecessary "karma: for sensitive claimants to have names on that list. Afterwards I found out one of my neighbour's girls had been named and she was beside herself. So were her family.

Privacy breach victims to sue ACC

DAVID GADD AND MARIKA HILLLast updated 05:00 30/09/2012
Sex abuse survivors are planning to sue ACC to force a significantly boosted payout for breaching their privacy in the ongoing Bronwyn Pullar whistleblower saga.

ACC sent apology letters in June to sensitive-claims clients and offered to pay them $250 if they agreed to stay silent, after one of New Zealand's biggest privacy breaches in August last year.

The "insulting" offer came after ACC mistakenly released the names and details of 6500 claimants, including 250 sensitive-claims clients who are victims of sexual abuse and violent crimes, to claimant Pullar.

Wellington lawyer John Miller, a specialist in taking on ACC, said more than 100 claimants affected by the massive Pullar breach had approached him to take the case. He said those wanting to pursue ACC were sensitive claimants who generally had long simmering feelings of being poorly treated by the ACC system.

Although a claimant with a normal injury could shrug off the privacy breach, for sensitive claimants "this is the last straw".

"It's a corrosive environment they are in with ACC, frankly. The people I have spoken to, they are insulted by $250, it is a derisory amount for the torment they have gone through."

Worse was ACC's requirement that claimants sign a confidentially agreement if they took the payment. "They feel they are being told ‘now go away and shut up and sign a document to say you are going to shut up forever more'."

He said that although technically class action claims were not possible in New Zealand, the process worked with one claim taken and if it won it set a precedent. ACC would be asked to settle with everyone, or face losing case after case with legal costs compounding the settlement payouts.

He said the process had worked before and usually ACC saw sense.

Miller would not be drawn on what level of compensation would satisfy claimants, but said past privacy breaches had won payouts of anything from $2000 to $40,000. It depended on the severity of the consequences.

The privacy breach led to ACC introducing strict privacy policies and saw an exodus of top staff.In 2003 he said ACC paid $8000 for sending a man's earnings details to his wife, resulting in divorce because he had kept his income secret from her.

The Dominion Post revealed in July that ACC paid out almost $50,000 for eight privacy breaches in the past three years.

However, the government agency refused to divulge the amount of each payment.

Following an investigation in the Pullar blunder, the privacy commissioner found that systemic weaknesses at ACC and an "almost cavalier" attitude towards claimants' information led to the breach.


ACC chairman John Judge, chief executive Ralph Stewart and board members John McCliskie, Rob Campbell and Murray Hilder all departed from the agency.

ACC has so far refused to comment publicly on the financial settlement payments.


- Sunday Star Times






please try not to worry too much about those named on the document. They have been redacted as you can see. Those documents are not recognisable as any one person. I cannot see three links as in my case that would say it is all the same person but not who, other than the Local office number. Maybe that could identify you to yourself, but it couldn't identify me to the document unless I had told you how many cases I had on there and you knew, which you would of course but only through LF letting out my house and address etc, and also bought over here for anyone to see all about mini.

The docuemnts I have seen purporting to come from Slater, and god knows where previous to that, only show one or two facts and that is there was a leak, and it was serious and big ( a lot of people). The problem would be that after being apoligised too by head office and said that it would not get out to the media, it actually has, or so we are lead to believe. There is some doubt in my mind, as it has not been linked to Slater, or it would have been noted when the police were doing the investigation and slater would have been bought into it then. he would have been Made to tell where he got it from and I would like to ask him why he didn't publish it in its intirety?? I can guess the answer now!! But I would love to hear his response to the question.

I will find my copies I was sent from the ACC and see if they fit with the ones supplied here. Because mine are not redated at all us under the privacy ACt I have the right to have them untouched. If mine are different in any way I will not only tell you up here but I will also be asking some serious questions of why ACC would want to 'pull the wool over my eyes' so to speak.

To me it would be another good reason why they are not trust worthy.

Mini
0

Share this topic:


  • 9 Pages +
  • « First
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users