Who leaked Pullar’s name?

78 comments on “Who leaked Pullar’s name? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. toad 1

   23 March 2012 at 11:57 am

   Yeah, from what I gather, Smith was far from the most liked Minister among his colleagues, but was tolerated because he got the job done.
2. Jim Nald 2

   23 March 2012 at 12:07 pm

   Speaking of which ….. NZ voters today would be spoilt for choice when trying to spot who might be the most outstanding Lady Macbeth of John Key’s party 😕
3. ianmac 3

   23 March 2012 at 12:23 pm

   In my opinion Judith Collins exhibits a spiteful arrogance. Would she leak? Mmmmm
4. Ross 4

   23 March 2012 at 12:27 pm

   I think you mean you’re “betting” it was Collins. Certainly Collins doesn’t seem to be too impressed with Pullar’s conduct, so it would come as no surprise if she was the leaker.
   • Jilly Bee 4.1

     23 March 2012 at 1:34 pm

     According to Radio N Z, the Auditor-General Lyn Provost is considering an enquiry. I trust she will stick to her guns and authorise this – I imagine she will be put under considerable pressure not to proceed.

     I agree ianmac – spiteful arrogance sums up Judith Collins’ attitude.
     • burt 4.1.1

       24 March 2012 at 12:02 pm

       Jilly Bee

       I understand that if the AG takes this track that all National need to do is claimed the ref changed the rules and denigrate her…. That’s apparently the acceptable approach endorsed by many on this blog.

       Apparently parliament know better than anyone what the intent of the law is and if the AG claims they breached it then the government (National…) can simply pass retrospective validations to sort it. Apparently killing of any court cases that might pop up is a bonus in democracy because it gets rid of pesky waste of time cases.
     • burt 4.1.2

       24 March 2012 at 1:19 pm

       Jilly Bee

       I trust she will stick to her guns and authorise this – I imagine she will be put under considerable pressure not to proceed.

       One would imagine so. But that’s her role and to date she appears to act without fear or favour.

       As much as that’s excellent it’s also unfortunate because it means she may not stay in the role long enough to be really effective. If she alleges laws were breached and is told she made a bad call and to move on, what do you think she will do?
     • Fortran 4.1.3

       24 March 2012 at 1:20 pm

       Such an enquiry does not fall within the pervue, or responsibilty, of the Auditor General.
       She cannot take this case – others will though.

       Falls more towards the Police, in the first instance, not A-G.
5. brybry 5

   23 March 2012 at 1:34 pm

   It’s certainly worth following up. Where did the name first appear?
6. Psycho Milt 6

   23 March 2012 at 1:35 pm

   Surely the Minister of Corrections who expressed satisfaction at the idea that inmates of her prisons might be raped or beaten has far too much integrity, empathy and strength of character to do something like that?
7. js 7

   23 March 2012 at 1:37 pm

   I heard it was part of an ongoing battle between Michelle Boag and Cameron Slater (National Party chairperson grievance politics) and he leaked the whole story to the Dominion Post. Phil Kitchin has mentioned before how he gets a lot of information from him.
   • Tom Gould 7.1

     23 March 2012 at 1:55 pm

     Word around town suggests its much closer to home for Slater and involves settling old scores with Boag. Nasty bunch, these Tories.
   • Ross 7.2

     23 March 2012 at 2:01 pm

     Hmm that sounds rather dubious. I think Slater despises Kitchin, and according to Slater, Pullar released private files to Kitchin.
   • Whaleoil 7.3

     23 March 2012 at 2:54 pm

     I have not ever spoken to Phil Kitchin, nor emailed him or corresponded in any manner.

     Kitchin has been running this story from information provided to him directly by Pullar, he has said that and now so has Pullar.

     [lprent: This comment went straight on? I haven’t changed anything. Random.

     Let me know if and when the problem shows up again and what your IP is at the time. For the moment I’ll file this as solved in trac. ]
     • mickysavage 7.3.1

       23 March 2012 at 3:04 pm

       So Cameron where did you get the information from?
        
       And was Nick Smith caught in friendly fire?
       • Whaleoil 7.3.1.1

         23 March 2012 at 3:06 pm

         What information are you talking about?

         Some of what I have published was sent direct to me years ago by Bronwyn Pullar…the rest is public domain from media sites.

         It is a valid assumption though that Smith might have got caught in friendly fire.
         • mickysavage 7.3.1.1.1

           23 March 2012 at 3:26 pm

           Pullar’s identity. It was o
           • Whaleoil 7.3.1.1.1.1

             23 March 2012 at 3:45 pm

             David Fisher published Pullar’s identity. What are you talking about?
             • mickysavage …

               23 March 2012 at 3:57 pm

               See below.  Something happened to my comment sorry.
         • Colonial Viper 7.3.1.1.2

           23 March 2012 at 3:28 pm

           Friendly fire. Is not.
         • mickysavage 7.3.1.1.3

           23 March 2012 at 3:31 pm

           Pullar’s identity and Boag’s presence at the meeting as well as what was said.  Given Pullar’s continuous complaints about privacy whoever did this had nerves of steel.
            
           There are three possibilities:
            
           1.  A highly placed politico with access to ACC information leaked the information to the Herald.
           2.  An ACC staffer leaked the information.
           3.  A highly placed politico with access to ACC information leaked the information to a right wing blogger with an axe to grind against Boag.  Your name sprang to mind.
            
           If this is correct then Smith was taken out by friendly fire.  I bet no one thought about checking for letters before the leak occurred.
            
           I bet there are a few red faces in the National Party and the brat pack may be considering some utu.
            
           I get the feeling this is going to continue to develop.
           • brybry 7.3.1.1.3.1

             23 March 2012 at 4:05 pm

             Unless, like Blubber says, it was Pullar herself. Which seems a likely scenario to me.
             • Colonial Viper …

               23 March 2012 at 5:30 pm

               Pullar would have known about Nick Smith’s letters, so if she was the one who did it, she would have needed to have been willing to cause him collateral damage on the way.

               Also, leaking it makes ACC look like shit, but probably also hinders her own case more than anything.
             • Frank Macskasy …

               23 March 2012 at 5:50 pm

               It’s entirely possible, Bryby.

               Having had experience with two people who have experienced head injuries, it can result in irrational behaviour; emotional outbursts, including anger at minor things; heightened sense of ego and grievance; and obsessive-compulsive behaviour. When Pullar admitted to sending multiple requests to Smith, who finally caved in to her constant demands, it fits fairly well with head injury ‘syndrome’.

               Of the two people I know, one recieved extensive ACC-supported therapy and financial assistance, and is slowly being rehabilitated into the workforce. (This was done under the previous Labour administration, not the current regime.)

               The other person was never diagnosed or assessed, as it occurred well before ACC and well before these things were appropriatly diagnosed. His life was pretty much as described above. He went from owning a million-dollar enterprise – to being an invalid and being cared for by his elderly parents.

               It would be strange, but entirely possible, that Smith was caught up in the extreme mental-yo-yo world of a head-injury case…
8. brybry 8

   23 March 2012 at 1:59 pm

   This article from By David Fisher
   5:30 AM Sunday Mar 18, 2012
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10792840

   Is there an article that pre-dates that?
   And did Michelle Boag send a letter, or an email, or a letter in an email, or all of the above?
9. aerobubble 9

   23 March 2012 at 2:03 pm

   Hypothetically, lets say you’re a bureaucrat and fed up with one client. You are trying to justify the clients rights to your bosses and inadvertently send not for publishing documents to the client.
   Must happen all the time with lawyers, etc, where tiredness or fed up employees…
   Intentionally or not its a game changer, even a form of entrapment to see if the client would do the right thing allegedly

   Imagine your are angry, frustrated, powerless, and then your handed a gift to level the playing field, how many would be wrong to use that gift, criminally wrong.

   Its the Urs Singer who now finds deportation a possibility. He goes to a training ground, gets involved in illegal acts, and now has to fight off be thrown out of the country. If the government had an agent provoker pushing for illegal uses of weapons, etc….

   Now my understanding of entrapment in NZ, unlike other countries, is its legal????

   Add to that the three strikes, and the pig board placing a camera of your youngest kid (illegally) finding his older brothers (legal) porn mag, and you have a real problem in NZ that the government has too much power and little in the way of limits to make life hell for whom ever it chooses.

   We have no protection when both parliament rushes law into place without any thought to the likelihood that they will be wrong, which inevitably they are. The lack of safeguards for liberty in this country is shocking. Its Fiji now, who would dare stand up to government.
   • tc 9.1

     23 March 2012 at 5:13 pm

     ‘The lack of safeguards for liberty in this country is shocking. Its Fiji now, who would dare stand up to government’
     +1
     • Frank Macskasy 9.1.1

       23 March 2012 at 5:34 pm

       ‘The lack of safeguards for liberty in this country is shocking. Its Fiji now, who would dare stand up to government’

       Indeed.
       • Clashman 9.1.1.1

         23 March 2012 at 5:42 pm

         Then stand up we must !
10. Ross 10

    23 March 2012 at 2:06 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/6609619/Victim-furious-over-ACC-handling-of-leak

    Strange that ACC knew in December that its files had been disclosed to Pullar but is only now informing some of the victims.
11. mickysavage 11

    23 March 2012 at 2:58 pm

    He he I wonder if Key’s office knows about this?  The next Cabinet meeting ought to be very interesting.
     
    And I thought that Collins and Smith were on the same side?
    • Tom Gould 11.1

      23 March 2012 at 3:16 pm

      The jockeying is already well under way. They know the double talk and lists of lists and dirty dealing and smearing and photo ops are starting to wear thin. Power is now so concentrated, and the baubles so dull, political cannibalism is inevitable. Nasty venal bunch, these Tories.
    • ianmac 11.2

      23 March 2012 at 4:27 pm

      Or more importantly, did Key know about this matter before this week?
      If he did then he mislead Parliament.
      If he didn’t know (and there was quite a lot of ACC action by December) what competency is that?!!
      Is it possible that Key knew alright and shifted Smith out of ACC to try and avoid fallout?
      Inquiry please.
      • Craig Glen Eden 11.2.1

        23 March 2012 at 7:51 pm

        Who did the leak?
        Look no further than Collins I reckon. Collins would have known about this situation when she took over ACC, watch her for your selves in Parliament clips when Smith resigned she was wishing she could be any where else but there.

        I also reckon Key knows who did it, he didn’t look sad at Smiths resignation he looked pissed, like he knew this was done by one of his own. Fun and games in the National Party for the next little while I reckon, the real question is as others have said when will the rat pack take their revenge, it will happen but when?
        • Pascal's bookie 11.2.1.1

          23 March 2012 at 9:39 pm

          God knows eh.

          But Smith isn’t asking for an enquiry into the events leading up to his own resignation because he *doesn’t* know what happened, I tell you what.

          The other thing to bear in mind is the Key is a hands off CEO style PM. His cabinet get pretty much a free hand to run their portfolios, and he only gets involved when someone needs to go.

          The most obvious example of that was with the broadcsts rights to the RWC when you had ministers bidding agin each other.

          n older example from when he was new in the leadership was with the S59 debate. Most of the National party was bleating away and stirring up the fundies on the one hand, and poking sticks at Labour on the other saying labour was being whipped into voting for it and blah blah blah; then in steps the boss, right over all of their toes and cuts his deal and tells them they are going to vote for it.

          He is above most all of what goes down policy wise I reckon. his role is strategic and political. As long as the Ministers are not causing political problems he doesn’t really get involved, and there doesn’t seem to be much evidence that he’s in the loop on what is going on untill there is a problem.

          This works for him, because he becomes a fixer, untouched by the scandal. It pops up, he doesn’t know anything about it, stalls for a day, maybe two, and then lowers the hammer if it’s starting to look dangerous.

          I’d say he knew there was trouble bewixt Collins and Smith, but doubt he wanted to know about the details. He seems like a “You sort this shit out between yourselves, because you don’t want me to have to get involved” type to me.

          So he may well have decided, rightly enough, that it’s better for Smith to go for what’s already out there, than to let it fester and have more stuff come out.
12. starlight 12

    23 March 2012 at 9:14 pm

    The state services commission knew of the leaks before the december meeting with
    pullar,sooo john key would have been aware of the leak and also of smith’s
    involvement,this is why the new acc minister collins was put in the loop,so she\
    knew as well, so john key must resign,collins must resign,the acc board must resign,
    Parliamentry rules broken by key,collins,they were in the act of a cover-up.
    NZ deserves better from their politicians.
    • toad 12.1

      23 March 2012 at 9:36 pm

      No, those Ministers would not have necessarily been alerted by the State Services Commission, starlight. But the one who would and should have been is the Minister responsible for the SSC, Tony Ryall.

      And if it can be shown he had knowledge of it, and failed to act on it, he should join Nick Smith in the League of Former Ministers.
13. starlight 13

    23 March 2012 at 10:45 pm

    The commission confirmed that pullar sent it a copy of the spreadsheet 6mnths ago,
    meaning acc should have been alerted before the pullar meeting in december.
    If those ministers were kept in the dark by ryall,then he is also at fault,you would
    think that smith would have been notified,being the acc minister,obviously there
    has been an attempt to keep everything quiet.
    I feel that pullar herself leaked the spreadsheet,but she didn’t expect that it
    would have affected smith so badly.
14. Sarah 14

    24 March 2012 at 4:56 am

    Rumour has it Boag tracked the email. It led straight from Judith Collins to Cameron Slater
    • Pete George 14.1

      24 March 2012 at 8:08 am

      Sarah, there were a lot of discussion and warnings on this thread yesterday about posting unsubstantiated rumours. You’re probably safe from reprimand here though.
      • felix 14.1.1

        24 March 2012 at 10:49 am

        “about posting unsubstantiated rumours”

        Really? I haven’t searched the thread, but yesterday all I saw was discussion and warnings for posting opinions and rumours as if they were facts.

        I’m not saying it didn’t happen, but I’m sure you could point me to an example if it did.

        Can you?
        • IrishBill 14.1.1.1

          24 March 2012 at 10:54 am

          What felix said.
        • Pete George 14.1.1.2

          24 March 2012 at 10:58 am

          So you can say anything here if you preface it with “rumour has it” or “in my opinion”?

          Rumour has it that IB and lprent would have different opinions on that.
          • lprent 14.1.1.2.1

            24 March 2012 at 11:15 am

            Not quite. Assertions of fact tend to to get jumped on from a great height if they aren’t backed. Quoting or attributing the opinions of others without linking is just plain stupid and also gets moderator ire.

            If you think it through then what is left is pretty much personal opinion and the usual rumor mills. Stating something as personal opinion, personal experience or straight rumour means that others can treat it as well.. Opinion or rumour. It just has to be clear that is what it is.

            Putting those things up in public means that others can refute them directly in comments. That is a transparency that I find works a hell of a lot better than the same opining and rumour mongering that happens in most broadcast and broadsheet media.

            In the end it is the credibility of their online handle that is at stake, and the ability to leave comments here at all. Assert too often without backing and the perpetrators will get permanent bans. Have ridiculous opinions too often, and you’ll find everyone engages only to mock. Reputation is everything.

            It has been the way of the net for 30 years or so. It was how the net was developed and why it developed. Remarkably effective at disseminating information because it is based entirely on previous mana from a history of offering good opinions. Scares the hell out of a lot of people in their first years on the net because there are limited leverage positions apart from giving good opinions.
      • mickysavage 14.1.2

        24 March 2012 at 11:02 am

        Interesting that Slater should comment here for the first time in ages, that he appeared to be running a diversion by talking about Kitchin rather than Fisher from the Herald, and that he then claims that he received all of his information either from Pullar herself or through publicly available information.
         
        Perhaps he could reappear and deny Sarah’s rumour.  Was he leaked Boag’s email by Collins?

        [lprent: whale has had a problem leaving comments here. I think that either akismet didn’t like him or his IP, but his comments were apparently disappearing without a trace. ]
        • Pete George 14.1.2.1

          24 March 2012 at 11:15 am

          Why don’t you ask him?

          It might be a step too far to ask unions to deny rumours though. That wouldn’t be a fair approach, would it.

          [lprent: the problem yesterday was people asserting facts. That reminds me, I must have a look at Rob to see if he has managed to find a source. ]
          • mickysavage 14.1.2.1.1

            24 March 2012 at 11:25 am

            PG 
             
            The Unions have denied the allegations repeatedly.
             
            No doubt you will continue in different ways continue to making this comment even though you do not have a shred of evidence to back it up.
            • Pete George 14.1.2.1.1.1

              24 March 2012 at 11:40 am

              Have they? Good, if they have also denounced anything like that.

              Have you got a link to back that up?
              • mickysavage …

                24 March 2012 at 11:54 am

                Back what up?  Don’t you have any credible sources for information?  If not why do you think that any attention should be paid to your comments?
                 
                • Pete George …

                  24 March 2012 at 11:59 am

                  It’s you that made a claim – “The Unions have denied the allegations repeatedly” – with no attempt at sources. Why should any validity be paid to your claim?
                  • mickysavage …

                    24 March 2012 at 12:21 pm

                    Try this one for a start.
                     
                    Poor old Petey sitting in Dunedin with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears demanding proof of something which is so easy to find.
                     
                    Is your plan to divert away from the rather serious issue concerning the possible breaching of someone’s privacy?
                    • Pete George …

                      24 March 2012 at 12:39 pm

                      Thanks msavage, now I know that if it’s easy to find then a link isn’t required. Except that a link to audio is not very convenient.

                      No, I’m not trying to divert, and note your participation on this thread.

                      There are a few serious issues surrounding Pullar and ACC, but I think we need to wait for the results of inquiries before jumping to conclusions.

                      But on the surface there does seem to be misuse of political and possibly bureaucratic power. And Pullar doesn’t seem to have acted very well regarding holding and possibly attempting to misuse private information that bizarrely ended up in her possession.
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      24 March 2012 at 12:49 pm

                      Oh pete.

                      The thing about not jumping to conclusions is, if you’re not going to do it, then you shouldn’t go ahead and do it with regard to Pullar.

                      When you do, you look like a nasty political operative with more concern for the politics of the situation than anything else.

                      There are lots of things out there, and lots of questions. Many of those questions won’t be answered by the investigations that are being held (Police and Privacy comm.).

                      If the AG decides to investigate, then maybe some of those other questions will get looked at, but it is not unseemly for people to be talking about it, especially when it isn’t yet clear that the AG will have an investigation, or what that investigation might be into.

                      But seeing you are happy enough to talk about what things look like on the face of it, and what it seems like with regard to Pullar…

                      What, on the face it, does it look like that Smith wants an inquiry into the events leading up to his resignation, and Key and Collins do not? What does that seem like, to you?

                      It seems doubtful to me that Smith doesn’t have some idea of what the investigation he wants would show. Does that not raise serious questions about why Key doesn’t want it?

                      What say you pete?
                    • Pete George …

                      24 March 2012 at 12:59 pm

                      Pb – it’s a known fact that Pullar received information from ACC she shouldn’t have – someone else’s fault – but it’s also a known fact that she kept that information for months, so it’s not jumping to conclusions being critical of that.

                      Things don’t look flash for Boag either, that’s been widely talked about.

                      And things went pear shaped for Nick Smith through his own indiscretions.

                      I don’t know what ‘political situation’ you are talking about. I’ve certainly got nothing political to gain from any of this – I guess unless you think I could precipitate a snap election and pull off some electoral miracle.

                      Maybe you’re trying a bit hard on the ‘political operative’ thing yourself – especially with your edited addition.
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      24 March 2012 at 1:09 pm

                      Baog’s role has been talked about indeed. But what I’m saying is that it seems from your comments that that is a bad thing, that people shouldn’t be leaping to conclusions or what have you.

                      Many of her actions are known facts. The letter she wrote to Collins was leaked, obviously by someone with access to it There’s no reason to think that that would be large circle. Fran in the Herald is confident enough to say that Collins was probably behind the leak, in spite of Collins’ denial. Do you think Fran was out of line there?

                      As to the politics, you are laughable Pete. Possibly the most un self aware commenter in the landscape. And in a landscape that includes redbaiter, that’s quite a feat.
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      24 March 2012 at 1:14 pm

                      I’m just asking questions Pete. From one private citizen to another. What on earth are you complaining about?

                      Why not tell me what you think about those questions, from one citizen to another?

                      It’s called citizenship pete, discussing the politics of the day.

                      Certainly the questions I ask reflect on me. But so what? I don’t resile from the reflection, and the questions are genuine.

                      But by the same token, your answers, or lack of them, and your insinuations that questions are innappropriate or whatever, reflect on you. Surely?
                    • Pete George …

                      24 March 2012 at 1:42 pm

                      You’ve jumped to a lot of conclusion based on nothing I said. Is that what you call “political awareness”?

                      I didn’t think I’ need to mention absolutely everything about all the associated issues and people to escape criticism. Come to think of it, that probably wouldn’t have made any difference.
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      24 March 2012 at 2:09 pm

                      pete. I wasn’t attacking you. All I did was point out the fact that when you selectively talk about things, while at the same time saying that people shouldn’t be leaping to conculsions or whatever, it looks a bit whiffy.

                      And you seem, again, seem, to be very determined not to talk about amny of the other facts that are out there. that’s ok, but guess what/ People are perfectly entitled to find that strange and talk about that strangeness.

                      Don’t be such a big baby.

                      now seeing you said I’ve made some assumptions, perhaps you could be so kind as to point them out.

                      let’s discuss the issue shall we?

                      or is that above, or beneath, you?
                    • Pete George …

                      24 March 2012 at 2:20 pm

                      Do you mean come back to the topic? Who leaked Pullar’s name?

                      That’s the sort of conclusion I won’t try to jump to, unlike Zetetic who’s seeming to use the uncertainty as an excuse to propose whatever he/she wants to. Is that the political operative sort of stuff you were referring to?
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      24 March 2012 at 2:29 pm

                      I was thinking about this stuff Pete;

                      ,blockquote>But seeing you are happy enough to talk about what things look like on the face of it, and what it seems like with regard to Pullar…

                      What, on the face it, does it look like that Smith wants an inquiry into the events leading up to his resignation, and Key and Collins do not? What does that seem like, to you?

                      It seems doubtful to me that Smith doesn’t have some idea of what the investigation he wants would show. Does that not raise serious questions about why Key doesn’t want it?

                      What say you pete?

                      No leaping to conculsions necessary. There facts, what do those facts look like, on their face. You were happy enough to talk about how facts relating to Pullar made her seem to you.

                      So I’m just genuinely wondering what these facts make you feel about Key and Collins. What does it look like that they are saying we don’t need an inquiry into the things Smith feels need to be explored?
    • starlight 14.2

      24 March 2012 at 10:00 am

      The tories are ‘donkey deep’ lol
15. Carol 15

    24 March 2012 at 7:37 am

    Fran O’Sullivan implies an email from Boag was leaked by Judith Collins in an op ed piece today (is this when Pullar’s name was leaked to the media?):

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10794249

    Any Cabinet minister sitting in “The Crusher’s” shoes – particularly a politician with as strong an instinct for self-preservation as Collins has – would quickly have worked out the impact of Boag’s email was they were also likely to be dragged into the same mud-pool which subsequently swallowed Nick Smith.

    The ACC Minister would quickly have reached the conclusion that all Boag’s email did was to compromise her.

    Hence she sent it to the ACC .

    Collins’ fingerprints will not be directly attached to the copy of the Boag email that was later leaked to the Herald on Sunday.

    But the ACC Minister, who is a former Law Society president, will not be shedding any crocodile tears over Pullar’s predicament. Nor will she be concerned at Boag’s embarrassment after she was hung out to dry.

    But O’Sullivan, always the NAct government cheerleader, uses her column to put the boot into Boag, and give Collins a bit of a positive glow.

    But if Boag is such a clumsy and bad bad-ass, what does it say about her being behind Key’s recruitment to the National Party?
    • Jim Nald 15.1

      24 March 2012 at 11:51 am

      Dark machinations behind Pullar-gate boaggles the imagination.
16. Frank Macskasy 16

    24 March 2012 at 12:50 pm

    Let’s connect some dots here, about leaks; http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/gerry-brownlee-in-the-public-interest/

    Now, are we starting to build a picture?
    • Jim Nald 16.1

      24 March 2012 at 1:22 pm

      overhead in a cafe … this john key government is a government of strategic deficits and strategic leaks.
17. Fortran 17

    24 March 2012 at 1:25 pm

    Getting Boring as to whodunnit !!!
    Move on.
    There are bigger fish to fry.
    • burt 17.1

      24 March 2012 at 2:41 pm

      So… It came from somebody in Labour then ?
18. Sarah 18

    24 March 2012 at 6:45 pm

    Here’s my opinion about the leaking…..

    Collins found out it was Pullar. She thought f**k that bitch, how could she do this to me. Why didn’t she talk to me.

    Then she heard Boag’s side of the story and thought shit I’m screwed.

    Desperate, Collins went to Slater said what dirt do you have on Pullar.

    Collins says perfect – we can use that angle around threats in the report to cover my arse.

    Slater said we also have this email Pullar forwarded me that she sent to Nick Smith threatening to expose wrongdoing in ACC, copying the media into this email. Slater says there also rumours about her and Smith’s relationship.

    Collins finds out what else is on file in the Ministerial office between Smith and Pullar. She’s like my god, not a reference….you are f**king kidding.. Shit this is brilliant. I can take out Boag, Pullar and Smith all at once.

    Collins manipulates the report to state that Pullar threatened ACC, which suits the ACC managers who are also covering their arse. Serious arse-covering all round.

    ACC release a one sided arse covering report (without any primary factual evidence) that the whistleblower threatened the ACC managers to obtain a 2 year benefit payout…even although such things aren’t possible, to create maximum damage to shift the focus from ACC/the breach back onto the whistleblower

    The media is like shock horror, blackmail, extortion etc.

    Collins leaks Boag memo to Whale.

    Whale leaks memo from Boag naming Pullar to the Herald. Perfect, exposed and both linked to blackmail and extortion to destroy their credibility.

    Collins tells Whale about Herald about Smith letter for Pullar. Whale contacts Herald. Herald reports this as a woman/’claimant’ rang the Herald.

    Threats, extortion/blackmail, inappropriate relationship etc. Perfect. Now we’ve got them.

    Pullar denies threats and goes to police to lay a complaint. Crap.

    State Services knew of breach for six months, longer than Pullar, yet never notified ACC of breach, whereas Pullar did. Crap.

    Software tracking emails & attachments and the ISP’s where opened, printed, on forwarded etc Crap.

    One email, one leak. Tracking. Collins, Slater, Herald. Oh dear.

    Question Time should be interesting this week.
    • mickysavage 18.1

      24 March 2012 at 7:15 pm

      I suspect you are pretty close Sarah.  Beneath the smooth calm surface that is the National Party caucus lies this seething pit of ambition and many who would eat their young to gain advantage.

      The next week ought to be fascinating.  If Collins through her actions has caused the demise of Smith’s cabinet career then utu will be extracted.
      • deuto 18.1.1

        24 March 2012 at 9:38 pm

        MS, we live in interesting times. Re your last sentence, I was interested in this article in the Herald the other day – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?objectid=10793713

        Also, while trying to avoid the things I should have been doing today, I read Farrar’s last blog* with Stuff re the rise and fall of Nick Smith and found para 10, sentence 2 particularly interesting.
        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/blogs/david-farrar-by-the-numbers/6626704/The-rise-and-fall-of-Nick-Smith
        Who knows what might happen………..

        * Farrar notes at the end of this blog that this is his last blog contribution as the contract has expired as it was for the period of the election etc only.
19. Anne 19

    24 March 2012 at 8:09 pm

    Yes, I too, am intrigued by Sarah’s interpretation of events.

    I have tried, but I don’t have sufficient knowledge to be able to access a video of Question No. 2/March 20th/Kevin Hague to the Minister of ACC.

    If I’ve recalled the right question, a study of Judith Collins’ facial expression immediately prior to her answering the question says it all. That she is guilty of something is written all over it.
    • deuto 19.1

      24 March 2012 at 9:02 pm

      I am also intrigued by Sarah’ s interpretation. IMO there is a lot more to this than meets the eye, especially with respect to Collins’ involvement. Am just taking some time to think about Sarah’s interpretation before commenting – that is not a negative, as a female myself I have some experience as to how we think, including many of the (female) players in this saga. NO – not trying to make this a gender thing!

      Anyway, here is a link to the recording of Kevin Hague’s question 2 on 20 March. Not sure I can identify the expression you refer to but Collins’ appears IMO to be much less self-assured than she usually is through out this recording. I also found the behaviour of Tau Henare and the other person immediately behind her during this question and answer session interesting.

      http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/11875

      Hope this link works – had some difficulty pasteing it. FYI all Parliamentary recordings can be accessed by going to the www. inthehouse.co.nz site.
      • Anne 19.1.1

        24 March 2012 at 9:15 pm

        I’ve got the wong question deuto. Now you’ve given an address, I will see if I can find it. It may well have occurred during the course of a supplementary question but not this one. I can assure you it was look to kill…
        • deuto 19.1.1.1

          24 March 2012 at 9:25 pm

          The correct link is (I think) http://www.inthehouse.co.nz – my comment included an incorrect space between “www” and “inthehouse”. Having watched question time each day this week, I also recall that look but cannot remember which question it related to – or it could also have been in the General Debate session on Wednesday?
          • Anne 19.1.1.1.1

            24 March 2012 at 10:11 pm

            Thanks for the link. Know where to look in future. As I said if looks could kill… there would have been a lot of dead people – including you and me. 🙂

            I think she spoke during the Urgent Debate that same afternoon. That was probably when it happened. Might try and find it tomorrow.
20. ACC insider 20

    26 March 2012 at 9:32 am

    Four questions Minister Collins needs to be asked:

    Has the Minister run an IT sweep of her office for the email relating to Bronwyn Pullar that was leaked to the Herald on Sunday. If not, why not?
    Is the Minister aware that emails and attachment can be tracked, including when these are opened and the ISP address of where they are opened?
    Did the Minister or her office provide a copy of the memo regarding Bronwyn Pullar to Cameron Slater or any of his ISP’s?
    Did the Minister or her office encourage Cameron Slater to provide the memo regarding Bronwyn Pullar to the media?
21. Nick K 21

    27 March 2012 at 10:30 pm

    David Shearer must be loving this. He’s having to do absolutely nothing and watch the government suffer. Incredible.

Links to post

1. Lying liar caught lying again « The Standard: posted on 27 March 2012 at 7:10 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS