Key linked to Pullar claim

Written By: - Date published: 7:22 pm, March 29th, 2012 - 153 comments
Categories: ACC, john key, national, spin - Tags: ,

Close Up tonight led with the allegation, based on a leaked document, that John Key (and other prominent Nats) were listed as supporting a $14 million dollar insurance claim by Bronwyn Pullar in 2007.

Check out the Facebook posting here, and Close Up here. Key has issued a short, non-commital denial.

If you didn’t catch it live, wait for the video to be posted on the Close Up site. The commentary by political scientist Bryce Edwards is devastating. Interesting times.

153 comments on “Key linked to Pullar claim ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. IrishBill 1
    29 March 2012 at 7:40 pm

    Key’s caught up in this now?! Collins is done.

    • Anita 1.1
      29 March 2012 at 8:10 pm

      If Key sacrifices Collins to save himself he’s done too.

      • IrishBill 1.1.1
        29 March 2012 at 8:18 pm

        True. The only winner I can see in this (by which I mean not-loser) is Steven Joyce.

        • taxicab 1.1.1.1
          29 March 2012 at 8:24 pm

          Bang on Bill ,
          that pschopath Joyce looks to be the winner here and maybe that is where the smoking gun for all this lays

          • Anita 1.1.1.1.1
            29 March 2012 at 8:31 pm

            That probably overestimates Joyce, I gave up thinking this was some cunning crafted Machiavellian strategy a few days ago, now is just has a flashing “trainwreck” sign in my mind 🙂

            Now I write that
 Murray McCully’s name springs to mind 🙂

            • IrishBill 1.1.1.1.1.1
              29 March 2012 at 8:34 pm

              Yep. Cock-up over conspiracy for sure. Which doesn’t mean Joyce won’t be scheming hard.

            • mickysavage 1.1.1.1.1.2
              29 March 2012 at 8:57 pm

              Diversion to take the heat off his failed Foreign Affairs reorganization. Bit of a high price to pay though …

              • Anita …
                29 March 2012 at 9:08 pm

                mickysavage,

                I didn’t mean to imply that I thought McCully was responsible, just that something that starts off looking like a cunningly crafted Machiavellian strategy and turns out to be a train wreck could cheerfully be described as McCully-esque 🙂

                • mickysavage …
                  29 March 2012 at 9:31 pm

                  I agree that the suggestion that he would leak this information for personal cover is totally irrational but then I thought if McCully is involved …

        • Anita 1.1.1.2
          29 March 2012 at 8:24 pm

          Yep! From here on out Collins can only lose, and Key can only lose – so as long as Joyce keeps his head down and his hands clean he’ll get a net benefit.

          I imagine we’re about to see some chatter about Nat polling on this…

        • Puddleglum 1.1.1.3
          29 March 2012 at 8:28 pm

          Yes, timing is everything. Who gains most by this happening now, at such an early stage in the term when contenders for the succession have probably been assuming something more distant, in terms of their leadership-tilt strategy? 

          I’d add that in calculating winners and losers you’re assuming Key wants to keep the job 🙂

      • David H 1.1.2
        30 March 2012 at 12:27 am

        And if Shonkey calls a snap election shit will happen… The NATS are now at internal war.. Labour is a rudderless ship.. ACT HAHAHA Mana should get a couple of seats. and the Greens should clean up as the only party with out internal and external strife. And I am sorry to say but for the first time in over 30 years I will not vote Labour this time, and until they show a true direction then they have no hope. BUT what shape do you think the government would be????

  2. muzza 2
    29 March 2012 at 7:44 pm

    Bloody missed it…Its coming apart at the seams now very badly….please if there is justice, let this government fall apart. Make that let this government implode in as many ways as possible….Amen

  3. mickysavage 3
    29 March 2012 at 7:45 pm

    So who leaked it?  Someone from the Blinglish faction?

    • IrishBill 3.1
      29 March 2012 at 7:46 pm

      Perhaps Collins has gone feral. This is shaping up as the biggest own goal in NZ politics since the nats rolled Bolger for Shipley.

      • Pascal's bookie 3.1.1
        29 March 2012 at 8:08 pm

        God knows mate.

        But the close up piece was bad news for Boag I reckon.

        It was her name on the letter.

        Key denies being part of the 28 member support/advice group for Pullar. Other members they spoke to confirmed they had helped Pullar out with her insurance claim.

        Boag first denied knowing anything, then said the insurance co was the one that put together the 28 name list. How likely does that sound?

        So if Key wasn’t part of the group, then either the insurance co pulled his name out of thin air, or Boag did.

      • Tom Gould 3.1.2
        29 March 2012 at 8:21 pm

        Hubris. It was simply a matter of time. Their whole venal little Tory empire is collapsing under its own weight. Had to happen eventually. Sooner than I figured, though.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 3.2
      29 March 2012 at 7:59 pm

      Its all because of the very narrow majority they have with National and its partners ( ACT is practically dead and MP will die once Turia and Sharples exit)

      The ratpack is now fighting amoung themselves for the next stage. In a strange way Shearers hands off approach has created a vacuum that National has filled with its own infighting. Last year this was the space taken by ACT but of course by definition there is no caucus infighting in ACT

      • just saying 3.2.1
        29 March 2012 at 8:56 pm

        Shearer’s “hands off approach” has had no influence on this matter one way or the other. It was and is certainly no grand play. It’s simply nothing.

        • McFlock 3.2.1.1
          30 March 2012 at 1:00 am

          What has shearer got to do with it?
             
          The narrative in the media is now infighting in the nats. Maybe shearer would be the wrong guy if labour had to fight for attention (e.g. if all was going well for the nats and sothe focus was on petty points in House debates), but at the moment the objective is to keep out of the way and let the nats bleed themselves.
           
           

    • Colonial Viper 3.3
      29 March 2012 at 8:56 pm

      Blinglish has been so very quiet…

  4. RedLogix 4
    29 March 2012 at 7:47 pm

    It’s the casual misuse of “privilege’ and ‘influence’ to intimidate that is the crux of this matter.

    And the sheer size of the $14m claim that’s going to go down like the proverbial cold cup with most people who saw it.

    • Red Rosa 4.1
      29 March 2012 at 8:07 pm

      Real Chicago politics. Your National party subscription buys you influence…right to the top.

      The average Kiwi gets average treatment…but with these Nat heavyweights rallying round, Pullar obviously expected gold-plated results.

  5. taxicab 5
    29 March 2012 at 7:48 pm

    Shonkey Gonkey Donkey Deep in this one , better start waxing that surfboard and book that flight to Hawaii GONKEY !!!

  6. starlight 6
    29 March 2012 at 7:51 pm

    Now there is a grenade amongst the little fury things that are running towards the traps.
    All key and co know how to do is deny everything, there never has been a govt so shonkey,
    so corrupt as this one.

  7. Pete 7
    29 March 2012 at 8:05 pm

    This stinks to high heaven, but he was in opposition in 2007, so it’s not a conflict of interest for Key. Keep on pulling on this thread, though. I want to see where it leads.

    • Puddleglum 7.1
      29 March 2012 at 8:12 pm

      No, it’s not a conflict of interest but it does put an interesting light on Key’s claims that all he knew about Pullar and her ACC issues was from when she used to come up to him at various functions and talk about her problems.

      Seems that his acquaintance with her issues is a bit more direct than that. 

      Edit: Still, he can’t remember whether he was for or against the Springbok tour so I guess remembering that he was part of her activist support group may have slipped his mind too.

      • Nick K 7.1.1
        29 March 2012 at 8:34 pm

        Um, no.

        This is the private insurance matter with Sovereign and ACC is not mentioned in the story.

        • Puddleglum 7.1.1.1
          29 March 2012 at 8:44 pm

          Fair cop. I guess I was thinking of her injury issues. And I was assuming that the income claim was associated with those injuries.

          Key’s comments about his relationship with Pullar were of a general nature, in any event, about how closely he knew her.

          • Carol 7.1.1.1.1
            29 March 2012 at 8:49 pm

            I assumed that the private income insurance claim was associated with the same injuries as the ACC claim. The letter from Sovereign is dated 2007, after MS Pullar was injured. So I assumed the insurance claim was for loss of income due to her injury.

        • RedLogix 7.1.1.2
          29 March 2012 at 8:44 pm

          Yes we know that. Everyone has agreed this is not a ‘conflict of interest’ issue. It’s a question of the legitimate use of position, privilege and power.

  8. burt 8
    29 March 2012 at 8:22 pm

    I wonder if this is part of a bigger plan….

    I can see Key coming out and saying he told the press and it’s OK because – “By definition I cannot leak”….

    See: http://www.flickr.com/photos/antarcticlemur/13392589/

    • Jim Nald 9.1
      29 March 2012 at 8:45 pm

      Sounds truly astonishing how key players may be able to suffer sudden onset of amnesia that can be so pervasively infectious, and amazingly acquire supernatural abilities at translocating themselves from the epicentre of scandal to try to drown in that famous river called De Nial ?

      • Treetop 9.1.1
        29 March 2012 at 9:48 pm

        Yes I agree with the selective amnesia and when more proof appears you get version two, three, four… or SILENCE.

        Pullar has a good excuse, she sustained a permanent brain injury. When it comes to the high powered team who assisted Pullar in getting her insurance payment (she was insightful enough to take out insurance) I suppose they thought that Pullar would go away.

        There are going to be no winners and a lot more back stabbing and pointing the finger is yet to occur.

  10. logie97 10
    29 March 2012 at 8:28 pm

    Looks as though Judge might have been served a poisoned chalice, and there he was thinking that he could calmly stitch up the privatizing of ACC… not going to be so easy for him after all. He should slink back to his other consultancies posthaste.

  11. ghostwhowalksnz 11
    29 March 2012 at 8:28 pm

    Goes to show the national party is rife with these careerists and social climbers.

    We all knew that business cronyism was the raison d’etre of the party, but it looks as though the 1% were pushing their own wheelbarrows for personal advantage in the party meetings as well.

    Crush the unions and get your own insurance claim advanced at the same function. Who Knew ?

  12. Anita 12
    29 March 2012 at 8:28 pm

    Wayne Mapp… can we read into the method of his appointment to the Law Commission that he’s Collins-aligned? Or was it merely her as Minister rewarding someone generally National-aligned?

    • IrishBill 12.1
      29 March 2012 at 8:40 pm

      That list contains a lot of the people who helped John Key into the National party and helped groom him for leader.

  13. outofbed 13
    29 March 2012 at 8:36 pm

    So now she is not answering questions in the house on the issue because “Its not in the public interest”
    that is pretty telling.
    Also http://www.nzherald.co.nz/national/news/video.cfm?c_id=1503075&gal_cid=1503075&gallery_id=124809 she looks under pressure alight. Be surprised if she lasts the week

    • mickysavage 13.1
      29 March 2012 at 8:40 pm

      Collins is right on the edge. I understand the defamation threat was written on Ministerial letterhead. If so this is appalling. This is also a really high risk strategy and if it does not work will result in her removal from Cabinet.

      • Jim Nald 13.1.1
        29 March 2012 at 9:05 pm

        “Crown stationery is my stationery” – I hope that is not the attitude that takes hold of these folks in power.

    • Rob 13.2
      29 March 2012 at 8:59 pm

      Alight, how about self immolation.
      Got any petrol? It might help them.

      [I trust you are being metaphorical… otherwise over the edge. RL]

      • David H 13.2.1
        30 March 2012 at 12:29 am

        I dunno, by the looks of their faces it’s like they are juggling Nitro Glycerine. Just trying to stay alive.

  14. mickysavage 14
    29 March 2012 at 8:37 pm

    Michelle Boag, the gift that keeps on giving. I think us lefties should form a support group advocating for her return as National President. With her at the helm the Country would really start to hum …

    • Hami Shearlie 14.1
      29 March 2012 at 10:49 pm

      Old Winston must be almost cracking his face with grinning, with his old foe Boag deep in doo-doo! He will love to stick it to Boag and the Nats on Tuesday in Parliament. Can’t blame him! As the old saying goes, “If you wait by the river long enough, your enemies will come floating by!!”

  15. calltoaccount 15
    29 March 2012 at 8:41 pm

    Just wondering (had to add that, maybe JC is reading this), where did Key get the idea from about cycleways?

    I mean Pullar’s bringing up her cycling accident all the time to him apparently, so… cycles, cycling accidents, cycleways!

    A truly elegant answer to all of this! 🙂

  16. tsmithfield 16
    29 March 2012 at 8:43 pm

    Hmmm. Interesting times. This has thrown a pigeon amongst the cats!! 🙂

    Several points:

    1. Seems to me the leak now is highly likely to be Pullar herself. If we assume the leak is from the same source as previous leaks, then the source would need to have access to documents sent to a range of organisations. I see no reason that Collins would have a copy of a letter sent to Sovereign Insurance, for instance. I see that Pullars stock on Ipredict, that had sunk to $12 today has suddenly bounced back up to $24, so it seems that others have similar thoughts.

    2. There could well be a lot of bluster in the letter. It seems to me that the list of 28 names could well be an attempt to impress, and that only a few on that list actually had any involvement in the matter. The other names might well have been added by the writer without them even knowing. Those who have had some involvement seem to have been quite open about it. So, I am not so sure that too many conclusions can be drawn. Unless someone can point to evidence of Key actually approaching Sovereign on her behalf, then I think his denial will be very hard to challenge.

    3. Lets assume that all those 28 individuals actually have consented to being part of the support and advisory team. I am not so sure there is anything actually wrong with that. None of them had ministerial responsibilities at that time so far as I know. So it is totally unlike Nick Smith who was seen to be attempting to influence his own department for a friend. Also, the people on the list were supposedly supporting Pullar in her application to a private company. So, there was never a situation where they could actually exert any influence over the decision making process anyway.

    Anyway, it will be interesting to see what comes out over the next few days. If it is Pullar who is leaking, then she probably has plenty of other e-mails on her system that could come out.

    • mickysavage 16.1
      29 March 2012 at 8:55 pm

      Another considered comment TS.

      In reply:

      1. Doubt it. It may have come from within Sovereign but otherwise from an anti Boag faction. Could it be the brat pack?

      2. Agreed that verification is important.

      3. I do not think it matters. The overall impression is a bunch of wealthy Nats seeking way beyond what appears to be a proper entitlement for one of their group. Crosby Textor could not manufacture worse publicity.

      National appears to be leaking from many holes right now. Is the teflon coated reign of smile and wave now in tatters?

      • tsmithfield 16.1.1
        29 March 2012 at 9:02 pm

        Thanks MS.

        If the leak has come from Sovereign, then there are multiple leakers. The leaks coming from one source seems to be a more elegant solution to me. If that is correct, the question then is, who has access to all the correspondence to a fairly wide range of organisations?

        • Anita 16.1.1.1
          29 March 2012 at 9:06 pm

          I think it’s safe to assume there are multiple leakers, if you track back all the documents and facts that have come out so far it’s pretty clear.

        • Lanthanide 16.1.1.2
          29 March 2012 at 9:07 pm

          “The leaks coming from one source seems to be a more elegant solution to me.”

          Doubt it. Someone who worked at sovereign may have stashed a copy of the document away because they knew it could potentially be embarrassing and decided to release it now because of the poor job National have been doing of running the country.

          • Pascal's bookie 16.1.1.2.1
            29 March 2012 at 9:24 pm

            “The leaks coming from one source seems to be a more elegant solution to me.”

            Agree with Anita here too. The leaks seem to be aimed at damaging different parties.

            So who was this one meant to damage.

            If, (as ts seems to suggest), the leak came from Pullar, then who was it meant to hurt?

            The obvious candidate is Key, he is the one whose previous statements it seems to contradict.

            It would be safe to assume that Pullar wouldn’t leak this doc if she knew that Key wasn’t actually a support person. So Key’s denial is either a hell of a risky move on his part,(risking his own career and the survival of his government) or strong evidence that it wasn’t the Pullar/Boag camp that leaked it. as part of its

            If Key’s denial stacks up, then it would appear that Boag was claiming support for Pullar from Key when it didn’t exist. If that story sticks, then it’s Boags career on the skids.

            Is it possible that ACC would have a copy of this letter from its own case work determining Pullar’s claim?

            Fucked if I know, and my head is starting to hurt.

            Goddamn kremlinology.

            • tsmithfield 16.1.1.2.1.1
              29 March 2012 at 9:46 pm

              Thats why I think Pullar. She has already admitted to her head injury causing some sort of compulsion to send letters to all in sundry. What if it also makes her indiscriminately leak documents without full thought to the effect?

              • McFlock …
                30 March 2012 at 1:08 am

                Well if that were the case, it would be the first time the nats’ cronyism were publicly exposed with 100% transparency.
                     
                In other words “Head injury makes national party figure honest. Chaos and hilarity ensue”.

          • insider 16.1.1.2.2
            30 March 2012 at 11:10 am

            Or someone at Sovereign who was peed off at the way Pullar/Boag dealt with this issue thought it was timely for a bit of payback…. ie no collusion just wanting to put the boot in.

            I’m not sure namechecking people in a letter is really grounds for a scandal. Women’s magazines make a business out of it. My reaction to it was it shows that this woman has some ‘issues’ and is best kept clear of, kind of like the slightly tipsy gir/guyl at a party with the middle distance stare that you don’t want to get cornered alone in the kitchen with…

            • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.2.2.1
              30 March 2012 at 12:27 pm

              Or someone at Sovereign who was peed off at the way Pullar/Boag dealt with this issue thought it was timely for a bit of payback
. ie no collusion just wanting to put the boot in.

              Corporates are interested in the bottom line and self interest, political players are interested in putting the boot in.

              And there’s no profit margin for Sovereign to be involved in a messy political stoush like this. There is for several National players jockeying for power and position, however.

        • mickysavage 16.1.1.3
          29 March 2012 at 9:11 pm

          I wonder if Slater has a copy of this letter?

          • Bafacu 16.1.1.3.1
            30 March 2012 at 1:25 pm

            Why don’t you just ask him? He allows all sorts of people to post on his blog!

      • ianmac 16.1.2
        29 March 2012 at 9:42 pm

        tsmithfiels: Bryce Edwards says that it is not that these matters are illegal but that the perception in many people’s eyes is that cronyism appears to be rife and that those with power help their friends by using intimidation to attempt to get special treatment which would be unavailable to ordinary folk..
        It is perception rather than illegality.

        • Jackal 16.1.2.1
          30 March 2012 at 12:14 am

          By all accounts, the excellent commentary by Bryce Edwards is right on the money. The implicated Nats are running out of wriggle room and the big bad blue ship looks in danger of sinking. Who will jump first I wonder?

          However I’m not sure that there isn’t a question of legality here. Quid pro quo political deals are just as illegal as monetary influence. Although breaching the manual is not an illegal act in itself, the cabinet manual is based on legal and enforceable requirements.

          What we’re seeing here is a small part of the collusion the corrupt National government get up to all the time. That’s why they all looked so worried when Nick Smith jumped under a train… they all have similar or worse junk in their trunks.

          • Colonial Viper 16.1.2.1.1
            30 March 2012 at 12:27 am

            Who will jump first I wonder?

            Who will jump from the train, and who will be pushed.

            However I’m not sure that there isn’t a question of legality here.

            Yep, issues of both legality and legitimacy are going to affect this Government for the next extended amount of time now.

            With the erosion of legitimacy and political capital, National’s ability to pass sweeping controversial legislative change this term is slowly diminishing by the day.

    • taxicab 16.2
      29 March 2012 at 8:56 pm

      On the other hand someone , lets say , who might have a history of acquiring certain confidential documents who then leaks them for their own score settling might like to finally put the stake through the heart of the boagie woman as payment for her part in seizing control of the national party presidency . Just a thought !

    • starlight 16.3
      29 March 2012 at 9:12 pm

      You could be right,i had a feeling it could be pullar,can the investigation sieze her computer or
      do a forensic examination?

      • grumpy 16.3.1
        29 March 2012 at 9:24 pm

        Good point, especially given Collins’ obvious glee that the Privavy Commissioner would be doing forensic computer examination.

        My money is on Pullar, and it seems Crusher’s too.

        • Anita 16.3.1.1
          29 March 2012 at 9:52 pm

          I think Collins is betting on it turning out to be leaked from within ACC. She will have had the list of accesses to the document within ACC for some days now.

          • toad 16.3.1.1.1
            30 March 2012 at 7:57 am

            Collins has not only stated that the leak didn’t come from her, but stated that it didn’t come from anyone in her office.

            The only way she can know the latter for certain is if she does know where the leak came from.

      • insider 16.3.2
        30 March 2012 at 11:13 am

        I don’t think the privacy commissioner has anything like police powers that would allow her to seize and inspect private property. She might have the ability to access govt equipment.

  17. Johnny 17
    29 March 2012 at 8:51 pm

    Seems every Nat is implicated in this one. Nick Smith as Minister of Education and Bill English as Minister of Finance appointed Bronwyn Pullar to the board of Crown entity Learning Media Limited in 1999. She served as a director til 2002 according to the Companies Office website. I wonder what strings Bill pulled for his old friend, Brono. Looks like most of the rest of the national clan have been pulling strings for the $14 million dollar woman as hard as they can for years.

  18. Puddleglum 18
    29 March 2012 at 9:00 pm

    In the transcript linked to by Pascal’s Bookie (comment 9) Norman was very quick onto the case and zeroed in on the apparent inconsistency in Key’s account of his knowledge of Pullar and her issues.

    Also, if the letter is correct, then the National Party MPs on the list were part of the party that was looking likely to win the 2008 election at the stage the letter was written. That must have been known by Sovereign and, of course, by those on the list. To that extent, it was a misuse of political power and had intimidatory overtones (whether or not they were intended).

    As Bryce Edwards noted, many people will be astounded that this kind of heavyweighting is carried out by politicians projecting their power for the benefit of one of their own – once again, assuming the list is accurate. 

  19. randal 19
    29 March 2012 at 9:18 pm

    nah.
    John Boy is on his farewell tour now.
    he leaked it himself so he can retire gracefully.
    sort of.

    • AAMC 19.1
      29 March 2012 at 10:19 pm

      +1 JK dips out soon after election, Joyce takes the mantel with Collins cast aside, Key gets to cash in on the asset sales….

    • David H 19.2
      30 March 2012 at 12:32 am

      When is he due back into this shit storm???? The look on his face will be priceless. Unless he says “fuck it” and just diverts to Hawaii..

  20. tsmithfield 20
    29 March 2012 at 9:19 pm

    Personally I think there is a lot of fantasy and exaggeration in Boag’s letter. It is very easy to claim the support of umpteen influential people without their consent when it is thought the letter won’t go any further than the organisation to which it is sent. Even if there was “support” it may well have been of the nature of “I hope all goes well with your application to Sovereign”, rather than any tangible support.

    In my opinion the PM should initiate an independent inquiry now as that will flush out the truth which I think is likely to reflect very badly on Boag and Pullar more than anyone else. That would also enable him to keep the moral high ground, if it is actually the case that he has had no involvement in the matter.

    • Anita 20.1
      29 March 2012 at 9:36 pm

      Key can only initiate an inquiry if he is totally sure he knows what will come out and that it won’t damage him. Do you think he’s willing to take that risk under the circumstances? 🙂

      I am kinda pleased by the idea of Key being a follower of the great Rumpole of the Bailey 🙂

  21. Blue 21
    29 March 2012 at 9:22 pm

    Very interesting. Two scenarios: either Key was involved in helping push Pullar’s case, and has decided to lie/fudge/conveniently ‘forget’ he was part of it, or Boag put his name on the list without asking him because he is part of the little gang of high-profile Nats she has cultivated who ‘owe’ her.

    Either way, it’s going to be hard for National to shrug this off. The public might accept the bullying of beneficiaries and cameramen, but when it comes to some little creep trying to extort money out of ACC and insurance companies because they have friends in high places, that’s going to rankle.

    The level of arrogance and entitlement displayed by Boag and Pullar is breathtaking. Here in NZ it’s hard to imagine receiving a letter saying ‘I’m best mates with this list of high profile people, give me $14 million or I’ll go to the media’ and have the writer actually be serious.

    Who would not be embarrassed to send a letter demanding that? Who would possibly imagine that such a thing would not come back to bite them? Born-to-rule Tory mentality at its finest.

    • starlight 21.1
      29 March 2012 at 10:52 pm

      Also because of the pressure by pullar’s supporters and her team,she was able to get
      a $1mill + payout,to me that sounds like coersion,intimidation,i’m sure that there
      would be a blackmail factor here as well,with the threat of going to the media.

      • Anita 21.1.1
        29 March 2012 at 10:56 pm

        Are you saying I should be charged with blackmail if I say “if you don’t repair the roof that I bought last year I’ll go to Fair Go!”?

      • David H 21.1.2
        30 March 2012 at 12:34 am

        Hang on didn’t she want 14 mil???? and got only one. No wonder she’s pissed, can’t join the rich elite with under 10 million.

  22. Lanthanide 22
    29 March 2012 at 9:35 pm

    Freudian slip by Bryce Edwards?

    Michelle Boag “bought” John Key into parliament.

    • Clashman 22.1
      29 March 2012 at 9:43 pm

      Heard Slater claim that Boag bringing Key to National/politics was a “myth”.
      He didn’t expand on it.

      • Carol 22.1.1
        29 March 2012 at 9:57 pm

        Ha! If this Herald article is correct, I can see why Slater would claim that…. the bad blood with Boag goes back a ways:

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/john-key-the-unauthorised-biography/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502247&objectid=10523287

        For Key’s part, this was the realisation of four years of effort. He had first made contact with National in 1998, thanks to his sister, Liz Cave. She worked as a receptionist at Christchurch firm Lane Walker Rudkin, where then-National Party president John Slater used to make sales calls for his textile business. One day, Cave mentioned to Slater that her brother was interested in returning to New Zealand. Slater gave her his number and told her to get Key to ring, which he duly did.
        […]
        At this point, Slater himself got the shove, losing a ding-dong internal party presidential battle to the PR consultant Michelle Boag, who made it her mission to clean out the “dead-wood”.

        • ghostwhowalksnz 22.1.1.1
          30 March 2012 at 8:46 am

          There were later accusations about ‘missing donations’ from Slater Snr time as President. It looked like a classic skimming operation. Donate $10,000 , only pass on $8000. Boag was rightly outraged as she has complete integrity and would have expected the same of her predecessor.

  23. coolas 23
    29 March 2012 at 9:42 pm

    Wow. That’s come fast. Brilliant. And there’s so much more. There’s Bill helping out brother Conner with South Canterbury Finance: there’s Murray and his NZAid ‘jobs for the boys,’ same as Gerry in Chch. Foss has lied to the house. Avariceness and narcissism are a dangerous combination. And their Leader has both in volume, and little else.

    Joyce, the Machiavelli? I don’t think so. He’ll be in some scam. Maybe roading conrtactors in the $5b highway build he pushed for so hard.

    I reckon a player in this is the person most wounded by this Government. Yep. That ‘strange man,’ Don Brash. Pride is his vice. And that’s been pricked badly. Bet he’s got a mate in Sovereign.

    If the shit keeps coming for National anything could happen: Dunne might loose confidence and withdraw, as should Maori, right now. Big chance. Jump the waaka and stand a chance. And surely there’s at least one Nat MP who’ll break ranks. They’re sunk. Long and messier the better.

    This is a 5 star day.

    • Colonial Viper 23.1
      30 March 2012 at 12:35 am

      Joyce, the Machiavelli? I don’t think so. He’ll be in some scam. Maybe roading conrtactors in the $5b highway build he pushed for so hard.

      Joyce pushing for the RONS is a bit more to do with increasing the property and subdivision values of his good mates’ holdings in Northland, and a bit less to do with deals with roading contractors. Although both sides of the equation are being played, obviously.

  24. DH 24
    29 March 2012 at 9:46 pm

    The list I don’t reach much into, is most likely just name-dropping, but this whole dirty business brings a smile to my face. It is just delicious. NZ has always been far too trusting of it’s politicians and this is just the kind of wakeup call this country needs.

  25. burt 25
    29 March 2012 at 9:52 pm

    This kind of politics makes me appreciate the two term limit for US presidents. Key’s already run his course, he steered the public away from the failed policies of socialism and the self serving who promote them. The big thing now for NZ is that we find a better way.

    The flip-flop of Labour yanking left and nationalising and National yanking right and selling all the time and with both parties playing popularity games with tax and justice policies is stuffing our country. Unions are good, unions are bad, low tax thresholds with high rates are good then they are bad, sometimes Labour can’t decide itself if they are good or bad till they see what National are doing and vise-a-versa.

    The political status quo is total crap people. We need to get out of the cycle of going absolutely nowhere via a pendulum centered around popularity every three years.

    • Anita 25.1
      29 March 2012 at 9:54 pm

      Wouldn’t a two term limit in NZ ensure exactly the kind of pendulum swings you’re complaining about?

      • burt 25.1.1
        29 March 2012 at 10:12 pm

        Possibly, that wasn’t actually what I was suggesting. Yes I did start with that as a reference for the problems associated with the arrogance of multi term leaders.

        I don’t actually think breaking the political see-saw would be achieved by constraining leadership terms, any likable character giving out the lollies will arguably achieve the goal.

        But on breaking the pendulum of popularity, I think that’s more about clearly and concisely illustrating the folly of flip-fliping policies. Neither major party really has an interest in doing that. Thankfully Labour have done their bit to reduce their size such that it’s inconceivable they could govern alone. Once that happens to National the current ‘minor’ parties get to be more effective than 1-2 policies horse traded for unconditional support on everything else. Then the game changes.

        Therefore what’s going on in this thread is great, it’s part of chunks of National party support evaporating toward a similar level of support as Labour while the others grow.

        (I’m feeling positive today, please don’t tell me National support is going straight back to Labour or all I have said is for nought. Less than nought – it’s embarrassing I could be so naive as to think we are not just in a swing of the pendulum and there is no way out )

    • Colonial Viper 25.2
      30 March 2012 at 12:38 am

      This is burt doing his classic “Labour is crap” line when National is cruising along OK, which predictably transforms to an “I’m such a good centrist moderate and ALL politicians are crap” line when National is being buried under an avalanche of their own excrement.

      What a toadying Right Wing sycophant.

    • Armchair Critic 25.3
      30 March 2012 at 12:54 am

      How would that work, burt?
      We vote for parties and electorate MPs here, in the US they vote for an individual (or an electoral college that is directed by the voters on which individual to select).
      If it’s a two term limit on the parties, that’s a massive and fundamental change, and quite different to the US.
      If it’s a two term limit on the PM, that’s interfering in the business of a political party. I thought you opposed that sort of thing.

      • burt 25.3.1
        30 March 2012 at 8:19 am

        We vote for parties and electorate MPs here

        Yes, we have a pseudo FPP system alive and well.

        If it’s a two term limit on the PM, that’s interfering in the business of a political party. I thought you opposed that sort of thing.

        I didn’t actually say we should do that, in fact I was quite clear that I wasn’t suggesting that rather I appreciate why it’s there. I was very clear that I was making reference to the arrogance of multi term leaders as was also clearly illustrated with “I’m never wrong – move on” Clark.

  26. bad12 26
    29 March 2012 at 9:57 pm

    ”Snigger”,a claim to the insurance firm for a paltry 14 mill,”out-right laughter”,no wonder 28 of them were falling all over each other to be whats-her-faces support crew,

    There were probably more than a few superficial injuries, scratches and stuff,as they all climbed over one another in an effort to take first place as the number ONE support person,

    You can bet one thing in this sordid little tale of National Party sleaze and that,s at the point where Nick Smith either decided to or got told He was resigning Slippery or His mouth-piece clearly told all of them that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to do with Ms Pullar was to be referred to Slippery,s office and Captain Panic Pants would deal with it,

    By then its a reasonably sure bet that the PMs office had a clue,or knew,that Pullar was tracking Her emails on the subject of Her compo claims and the verbal directive would have been given that anything else to do with Pullar was passed up to the 9th floor by hard copy only,

    Our belief is that this is why Crusher,s office have caused a hard copy of the Boag email to have been generated and our suggestion is that that hard copy of the Boag email was then trotted up to the PMs office as per the edict given out after Nick Smith got His well deserved rewards…

    • outofbed 26.1
      29 March 2012 at 11:48 pm

      So the leak came from the PMs office which is why Crusher is vehemently denying it was her doing and refusing to answer questions at question time about who had the hard copy.(it would apparently not be in the public interest) this leads to JK it seems
      The questions is who will fall on their sword?

      • Colonial Viper 26.1.1
        30 March 2012 at 12:07 am

        The only way Crusher could 100% deny (as she has done) having leaked to the media, and to deny 100% that her Ministry/staff leaked to the media, is to know exactly who did. Her knowing the PM’s office was doing the knife work fits in there like a glove.

  27. bad12 27
    29 March 2012 at 10:07 pm

    PS,there must have been bitter disappointment when the insurance only coughed up a measly Million after all that high powered influence peddling,

    Our query here of course,soley for the purposes of the filing of our own mega-bucks claim and now knowing that we will likely have to peddle a little influence,(and knowing that being on nodding terms with the Prez of the local gang chapter aint quite going to cut it), would i need to sign up to the Party to gain such a support crew of influentail standing,(I am sure I could just about hold onto my nose long enough),or is there perhaps a payment option for the support crew whereby they gain a % of the claim as paid,(we were thinking of asking Sir(snigger)Doug Graeham to act as support person but His influence seems a little tarnished recently)…

  28. HiThere 28
    29 March 2012 at 10:12 pm

    Wow with all the various threads of thinking around the whole case some critical issues have been overlooked. Why is it that even with all the nats supporters has Pullar had such a difficult time with ACC, her list of 45 issues if you ask other claimants dealing with ACC for long term injuries I believe would also reflect the 45 issues and more are just so familiar being long term problems of faulty acc mangagement that is deserving of a substantial inquiry from where Judge Trakspi found severe failings in 1992…..

    Who is really reaping the rewards out of the ACC scheme when there are just so many issues? ACC’s preferred assessors of course. Simple – follow the money and the lapses in law and the lapses in any substantial remedies in getting acc to properly follow the law. The Privacy Act, funding of the Privacy commissioner requires increasing, the HDC does not investigate ACC’s medical assessors, the Medical Council Guidelines are effectively ignored, the Code of Claimanst Rights is arely upheld, the system is a real mess with expenditure on ACC’s own agendas that are not serving our social contract more could do with strengthening to protect levy payers – claimants – you and I.

    Really you should go have another look at the Phil Riley Strategy of 2009. Sure its easy to pick on the brain injured claimant but why dont you ask others with injuries what ACC has really been doing when ACC reports a 3.5 billion dollar profit. Theres more to unravel I just wish the Nats had the foresight to strengthen laws that actually force ACC to provide the social contract as intended.

    • burt 28.1
      29 March 2012 at 10:24 pm

      Well said.

      • Colonial Viper 28.1.1
        30 March 2012 at 12:09 am

        You can’t believe that ACC made a profit, can you? I thought you said that ACC was a luxury that was “unaffordable”.

        • burt 28.1.1.1
          30 March 2012 at 8:25 am

          Well if you think state monopolies gouging 3.5 billion in profits while people suffer through lack of treatment is a good thing then you are indeed a proud socialist. It takes people like you to keep socialism alive, people who can fight for the right of the state to take their money from them while pretending the state is there to serve them. Let me guess, overcharging people for ACC is as “good” as over taxing them as long as it gives the government money for election advertising.

          This is like power generators banking billions of profit per year under Labour…. funny thing though was people like you defending that under Labour and complaining about power prices at the same time. Then being good socialist soldiers you rile against the profits when National are in power… what a complete puppet for a failed ideology you are CV.

    • burt 28.2
      30 March 2012 at 8:30 am

      HiThere

      from where Judge Trakspi found severe failings in 1992
.

      If only I hadn’t signed so many confidentiality agreements I would elaborate on this in vast detail. It’s a stunning story and it really should be heard by people who are stupid enough to think that because ACC fits their socialist world view that it is serving them well.

  29. appleboy 29
    29 March 2012 at 10:59 pm

    There’s no way Boag would have had Key’s name on there if it wasn’t cleared with him. Boag and Key are now covered in mud over this. Fantastic news, best I’ve had in ..oh 3 and a half years.

    • Colonial Viper 29.1
      29 March 2012 at 11:26 pm

      This ‘own goal’ ‘friendly fire’ incident is turning into someone having ordered a full blown artillery barrage on their own positions.

  30. Pete George 30
    30 March 2012 at 6:56 am

    The `claims support’ or `advisory team’ list of 28 is bizarre, seems like a gross overplay of name dropping.

    National is facing major internal problems. Nick Smith is already a casualty. The Labour hit squad thought it could sink Judith Collins too but may have guessed too much there, overplaying a very weak hand.

    Non-MP, Michelle Boag is the common demoninator in the shaky Key ship.

    Will she sort her ship (out of character), or will we see National sunk by Missile Boag?

    • tracey 30.1
      30 March 2012 at 8:08 am

      b edwards observation tht collins cld only b so certain her office didnt leak if she knew who did iis compelling

  31. tracey 31
    30 March 2012 at 8:31 am

    Creating and revealing a hard copy s a stroke of genius (I used that word loosely) devised/designed to make it almost impossible to pin a leak to anyone (because the electronic trail wont be definitive anymore)> This devise has a ring of “make a complaint to the police to stop the teapot tape in its tracks until after the election is over”. This level of damage control is coming from one place (be it a single person or a small group of repeat “offenders”) like a strategy group. In the past when this kind of stuff was going on Mr ” I am just guided by my Dept CEO’s McCUlly” is never far from the action but my money is on Joyce. Go back to hollow men if you doubt his lurking in the shadowsness

  32. Uturn 32
    30 March 2012 at 10:09 am

    Just goes to show… you should never count your teapots before they’re washed.

  33. bad12 33
    30 March 2012 at 10:57 am

    We think that by the time Crusher,s office caused the hard copy of the Boag email to be created the Beehive had or were close to the realization that Pullar had been attaching tracking software to Her various emails to ACC,(and possibly those to Government Ministers),

    So,whether ordered by Slippery,s crew up on the ninth floor or as a clever piece of work by Crusher,s office, hard copying the Boag email to Crusher was part of political survival 101,

    We still see the situation as this,Nick Smith simply being given the ”choice” by Slippery, resign now and there might be a chance of rehabilitation in some future Cabinet re-shuffle or get sacked by Slippery and have no chance at all,

    At the point of Smith,s resignation the word would have been put out from the 9th floor that Slippery,s office was to be given any correspondence to do with the Pullar woman with Captain Panic Pants as the go to,

    Its what happens with any and all nasty looking revelations of a scandalous nature in the corridors of power

    Crusher,s reward for all this stonewalling of course is a huge amount of collected brownie points in not revealing the destination or the purpose of the hard copy made of the Boag email,

    Our view is still that Crusher didnt leak the details of the Boag email She just passed a copy of it upstairs as ordered by Slippery…

  34. Pete George 34
    30 March 2012 at 11:42 am

    A ‘clarification’ from Michelle Boag:

    Key never asked to support Pullar, says Boag

    Michelle Boag says at no time did Prime Minister John Key take any action in support of Bronwyn Pullar.

    Mr Key’s name is listed in a 2007 letter from Sovereign Insurance relating to an injury claim from Ms Pullar, alongside other National Party figures – former Prime Minister Dame Jenny Shipley and Wayne Mapp.

    Michelle Boag says the letter merely listed people who were aware of her situation.

    She says Ms Pullar had spoken with Mr Key about her accident at a function, but at no stage was he asked to support her claim.

  35. Pete George 35
    30 March 2012 at 11:55 am

    Looks like the ducks have been lined up to give it their best shot.

    No offer of help from Key – Pullar

    Bronwyn Pullar has revealed she spoke to John Key in person about her battle with a private insurance company – but he did not offer to help her.

    Pullar said today she had vented “my frustrations” to Key at a National Party Christmas event. At that time Key was the MP for Helensville and not in government.

    “I was very distressed at the time and I took the opportunity to vent my frustrations. He listened politely, but I did not ask him to do anything and he did not offer to assist,” Pullar said in a statement today.

    “Media have speculated about the reason why John Key and other senior National Party figures were mentioned by my insurer in a letter to Michelle Boag written by one of their senior executives,” Pullar said today.

    “One of my advisers had asked me to prepare a list of known people who were aware of my dispute with the insurer, and who the insurer may encounter in the course of their business. This was in the context of us entering into negotiations to reach a confidential settlement.”

    Provision of the list was necessary in case the insurer subsequently faced questions from these parties who had knowledge of the dispute, she said.

    “The dispute between the parties was subsequently resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. The detail of the arrangement reached between the parties was subject to a confidentiality agreement.”

    Maybe Close-Up should look a bit closer before they race their stories out. It was obviously a nonsense story – it still is, but not the great scoop TV1 made it out to be.

    • Pascal's bookie 35.1
      30 March 2012 at 12:08 pm

      Maybe Close-Up should look a bit closer before they race their stories out. It was obviously a nonsense story – it still is, but not the great scoop TV1 made it out to be.

      Pete, maybe you should think and read abit closer before you rush your comments out. Boag has changed her story since yesterday. TVNZ talked to her yesterday, before they ran their story. What more do you expect them to do?

      • Pete George 35.1.1
        30 March 2012 at 12:26 pm

        What more do you expect them to do?

        Use some common sense and some basic journalistic skills. Doesn’t a 28 member “support team” sound just a little bit odd?

        Especially having a raft of prominent names on it, including LOTO. How many teams supporting people with grievances with government departments do you think David Shearer would be on. That any MP would be on?

        There’s some odd things coming out in this wider story, but that was one of the weirdest that should have caused any journalist to pause slightly before rushing the story out don’t you think?

        • Pascal's bookie 35.1.1.1
          30 March 2012 at 12:34 pm

          Pete.

          It was in a letter from the insurance co. It’s not for a jouno to just assume it’s bullshit. they rang a number of prominent people on the list who confirmed that they had advocated on behalf of Pullar. We’ve already had a minister resign for writing a letter supporting Pullar. They ranf Boag and got some strange comments from her.

          That’s what journalism is.

          Thinking something sounds a bit ‘odd’ so declining to run it, is like the opposite of journalism.

          • Pete George 35.1.1.1.1
            30 March 2012 at 12:50 pm

            It’s not for a jouno to just assume it’s bullshit.

            No, a journo shouldn’t assume anything, especially they shouldn’t assume they have the scoop of the day without applying a bit of common sense first.

            Maybe I didn’t word it clealry enough in my previous comment.

            Doesn’t a 28 member “support team” including prominent names like LOTO sound so unlikely that there must be something screwy about the story that warrants further investigation?

            (Probably not when making the show time is all that they really care about).

            • Pascal's bookie 35.1.1.1.1.1
              30 March 2012 at 1:11 pm

              Pete.

              The document exists. The fact that it looks weird, is what makes it a story. The fact that the PM denied involvement in something the doc claims exists, makes it a story.

              They asked Pullar for comment, she declined. they got comments from Boag.

              They ran the story.

              Boag has changed her story somewhat.

              This again, is a story. And journalists have run it.

              This is what journalism looks like.

              It’s how it works.

              See something weird, —> get the parties to comment,—-> run story, —–> run reactions to story.

              It results in journalism consumers being informed about the story.

            • mickysavage 35.1.1.1.1.2
              30 March 2012 at 1:45 pm

              Pete you are missing the big picture here.  The nuanced views of who is right and wrong and who did what are of interest only to the chattering classes and essentially irrelevant.
               
              The two relevant matters are:
               
              1.  The National Party is at war with itself.
              2.  The overwhelming perception is that upper echelons of that party consist of people who have a huge expectation of entitlement way above that of the ordinary person.  So someone can enlist her friends to try and get a payout 14 times what was legitimate without being embarassed AND then seek and demand ACC AND allegedly seek benefit from the accidental release of ordinary kiwis’ private information.  At the very least they could be embarassed about this.
               
              The responses to date feed in perfectly to the meme that National is full of individuals who think they are superior to everyone else and have expectations of self benefit way above anything that is reasonable.
               
              This issue will end in tears for them.
               
              I should try and disengage smirk mode occasionally but it is really difficult …

              • Anne …
                30 March 2012 at 2:24 pm

                National is full of individuals who think they are superior to everyone else and have expectations of self benefit way above anything that is reasonable.

                Watch a few Question Times and you can see it written all over their MPs faces. Smug, self satisfied, we’re just so superior… looks. Then the camera pans on the opposition parties, and most there look normal and natural – no uppity tosses of their heads etc.

                Mind you at the moment the Nats are looking sulky and surly. Wonder why?

              • Pete George …
                30 March 2012 at 2:30 pm

                1. The National Party is at war with itself.

                In your glee you’re not over estimating a tad are you? Boag has caused them some major problems for sure, but she’s not an MP, she’s not even in a signifiant position in the party?

                The insurance letter looks unlikely to be anything more than a distracting sideshow.

                If you keep trying to stoke this along you will probably uncover more National tawdriness, there’s always some of that to be found somewhere – but it’s a lottery whether that’s going to end up impacting more or less than the tawdriness of Labour tactics. The wider public aren’t fussed on either.

                Ultimately the loser is our democracy, and Parliament. Far too much time and effort is spent on negative destructive crap, which a lot of people beyond the feverish poliitcal backrooms have had a gutsful of.

                David Shearer’s positive new way has been successfully shoved aside, hasn’t it. Did you mention wars within parties?

                • mickysavage …
                  30 March 2012 at 2:50 pm

                  1. The National Party is at war with itself.
                  In your glee you’re not over estimating a tad are you?
                  Nope.  You are not seeing the big picture Petey.

                  • Pete George …
                    30 March 2012 at 4:01 pm

                    I suspect I can see a much wider more independent picture than you. How long have you been immersed in one party?

                    You might be seeing the picture you want to see. There’s a better than even chance that’s not what will end up being drawn.

                • wtl …
                  30 March 2012 at 4:33 pm

                  Far too much time and effort is spent on negative destructive crap…

                  I’ve been trying to resist replying all the crap you’ve been spouting over the last few weeks, but finally succumbed. This is all just ridiculous:

                  1) In this case the ‘negative destructive crap’ has largely been from National against National. So you’re continued complaints about people here, who have little to do with National, is very misdirected. Sure, some of the comments on this blog have been over the top, but it’s the internet FFS, what do you expect? Besides, you can’t expect everyone to behave according to your standards of decency (which are mostly hypocritical double standards anyway).

                  2) The above-mentioned letter was definitely of public interest. As others have highlighted, it shows how those with good connections use these to their own benefit. Of course a 28-person ‘support team’ is odd. Its not literally a ‘support team’ – its a list of people in powerful positions being used to threaten Sovereign, telling them ‘be careful, I have powerful friends who you don’t want to piss off.

                  Were those on the list fully aware that they were being name dropped? I don’t know. But the fact that such a tactic was used repeatedly is very revealing. I’m not surprised at all that it happens… but suspecting and seeing evidence of it are two entirely different things. But you would rather the media to bury it so we can’t see the evidence? WTF? All it the name of avoiding ‘being negative’???

                  3) Perhaps you should be complaining about those who actually DO stuff like abuse their positions of power to achieve their own personal aims rather than complaining about those who actually call them out on it? It seems that in your world we should all be nice to each other and let those in power get away with abusing their positions – after all, we don’t want to be ‘negative’, do we? I, for one, am very glad we don’t live in a world like that

                  Its all very sad. It seems to be that you are deeply in denial. You a such a big fan of Key and National that you are unwilling to believe that your side could act in such a way. So you lash out at those on the other side. And you start grasping at straws to try and discount all evidence that those in National get up to shit like this – i.e. the above comment complaining about the media report.

                  • Pete George …
                    30 March 2012 at 5:03 pm

                    You might cheer up if you didn’t make so many false assumptions. Just because you don’t see what else I do don’t assume I do nothing other than on here.

                    I’m not a big fan of Key and National. I’m both supportive and critical, as I am of Shearer and Labour.

                    I don’t have “a side”.

                    I criticise negative stuff elsewhere, I criticised WO on his blog yesterday (I’m very much against the personal attacks especially on collaterals) and there’s been plenty of hissy reactions to criticisms at KB over the years.

                    Generally those who behave the worst react the worst when called on their behaviour.

                    Relax and have a nice weekend.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      30 March 2012 at 5:13 pm

                      Petey Says Relax (and have a nice weekend).
                       
                      Thanks, Pete, I will. I was going to a comedy club tonight, but you’ve just saved me the twenty bucks:
                       
                      “I’m not a big fan of Key and National.”
                       
                      You should be on the telly, Pete! Comedy (G)old.
                       
                       

    • Te Reo Putake 35.2
      30 March 2012 at 12:13 pm

      Why was Key’s name on the list, Pete? Even if he didn’t offer to help, somebody thought he was OK with being associated with Pullar’s claim and added him in, apparently without his permission. Or so he says now.

    • Jackal 35.3
      30 March 2012 at 12:30 pm

      @ Pete George

      I’m not sure how that resolves Key’s answer when he was questioned about his knowledge on Puller’s ACC claim:

      I first met her [Bronwyn Pullar] when she came into politics in 2002, she was friends at that point with Michele Boag, I’m sure she continues to be so. I saw her at a few National events. I can’t remember seeing her ever since I’ve been the leader of the opposition so be a good five or six years.

      Sovereign Insurance notes:

      We have been supplied with a list of 28 named people who are members of Bronwyn’s ‘claims support/advisory team’.

      This list includes prominent individuals such as Sir Selwyn Cushing, John Key, Jenny Shipley and Wayne Mapp.

      The question is who put the list of 28 people who supported Pullar’s claim together. It is my guess that it was Boag and the list was composed because at the time those people did in fact support or advise Pullar and/or Boag in the best way to gain insurance as well as an ACC payout.

      The key here is that Boag has been very careful with her words:

      At no time did Prime Minister John Key take any action in support of Bronwyn Pullar.

      Advising and supporting somebody is not specifically taking action as the Prime Minister on behalf of Bronwyn Pullar.

      Boag and Pullar have simply realized that this is looking decidedly bad for all involved and it is damaging to the party they support.

    • Puddleglum 35.4
      30 March 2012 at 1:54 pm

      “One of my advisers had asked me to prepare a list of known people who were aware of my dispute with the insurer, and who the insurer may encounter in the course of their business.”

      This is an interesting comment. It speaks of ‘people who were aware’ of the dispute and whom the insurer may ‘encounter in the course of their business’.

      Perhaps I’m being too sceptical, but that honestly sounds to me like a careful rewording of something like:

      ‘We’ll make a list of well-known people with power and use it to leverage the insurance company.’

      Obviously, in the communications from Boag that the Sovereign letter refers to, the list of people was not presented to them as ‘some well-known people who know about Ms Pullar’s injury and you may encounter’ but as an ‘advisory/support’ team. That’s quite a material difference.

      And, frankly, it’s hard to imagine that Boag – who clearly has been going in to bat for Pullar for years – would present Sovereign with a helpful list of people they may encounter in the course of their business who know about Pullar’s dispute in a purely innocent manner, not intending that list to have any bearing on Sovereign’s decision-making.

      Ms Pullar’s ‘advisor’ (the one who asked her to draw up this list) either misrepresented to Ms Pullar the way in which it would be used or failed to inform her of the way in which it had, indeed, been used.

      You are right, Pete George, to note that the ducks are being lined up to protect John Key – but that’s not to say that the ducks were, in reality, actually in a line to begin with.

      • Ross 35.4.1
        31 March 2012 at 9:53 am

        I think Pullar’s advisor gilded the lily. It’s not unheard of. Job seekers have been known to do it with their CVs. It may have been true that those on the list knew of Pullar and knew what she wanted, but it may be a stretch to say they supported her.

        • Ross 35.4.1.1
          31 March 2012 at 10:01 am

          A point that has been overlooked, it seems, is that MPs advise and assist their constituents on a regular basis. I would hate to think MPs would think twice about that role. For example, Lianne Dalziel is helping her constituents in Christchurch re the quakes there. Should she take a step back? I would hope not. Of course, some of her constituents when making claims may mention that Dalziel has assisted and supported them. Is that wrong?

          • Colonial Viper 35.4.1.1.1
            31 March 2012 at 10:31 am

            A point that has been overlooked, it seems, is that MPs advise and assist their constituents on a regular basis.

            Ahhh, you’re going with the naive disingenuous look are you?

            I’ll clue you up: in instances where there is a direct conflict of interest eg. the constituent is also a personal friend who wants you to use your Ministerial sway over a portfolio to assist them, then yeah its wrong. Example – Nick Smith and Pullar. That’s why he resigned btw, in case you were wondering.

        • Colonial Viper 35.4.1.2
          31 March 2012 at 10:27 am

          It may have been true that those on the list knew of Pullar and knew what she wanted, but it may be a stretch to say they supported her.

          Several have already admitted on TV and radio that they were close to her in National Party circles and that they did support her.

  36. RichWhite&Fey 36
    30 March 2012 at 12:14 pm

    .. AT LEAST IT KEEPS THE CHATTERING CLASSES AMUSED ..

  37. tracey 37
    30 March 2012 at 12:45 pm

    Boag and pullar used 28 names to threaten the insurance co pany and clearly believed that if it thought those twenty would get up their arse, in otherwords boag and pullar thought they could wave the names and get action. .. For those who think supporting a party isnt about payback prid quo pro think again. Boag and pullar have no political career to lose and bugger all left to lose so like good party faithfull will now try and take the bullets for the good of the team

  38. bad12 38
    30 March 2012 at 4:57 pm

    We wonder if Slippery and Boag are going to have a quiet little get together in Queenstown this weekend???,

    Gee we would imagine that the venom filled polite conversation those two would have might strip paint….

  39. starlight 39
    31 March 2012 at 8:36 am

    Key,Boag and Pullar at the queenstown golf classic,that incidently is costing tax payers
    $500 grand.
    Key,according to the dom post has already done a ‘sweep’ of his files etc to see if there
    was any communication with pullar.
    Its all toooo convieniant and key says that none of them have seen each other at the
    tax payer contributed golf classic,does he take nz’ers for fools.

  40. randal 40
    31 March 2012 at 10:16 am

    my eyes are dim I canot see,
    I have not brought my specs with me;
    “Key linked to Pullar chain”?

  41. john 41
    4 April 2012 at 11:38 am

    John key and his National MPs are SCUM!