Serious process failures by ACC: Bronwyn Pullar’s list

As you scan this list, please reflect on the fact that every one of these reminds me of issues other claimants have brought to me, and are endorsed by claimant organisations, lawyers and service providers who deal with ACC on a regular basis. And ask yourself if it is okay for this catalogue of issues to go uninvestigated (except for the privacy ones), as Government intends.

Legislation, Guidelines & Code Breaches by ACC:

1. Repeated non disclosure of correspondence regarding Bronwyn’s claim when requested.

2. Extensive disclosure of other claimant’s information to Bronwyn

3. No ability to restrict unauthorised access by 2500+ ACC staff and contractors to files, or medical files

4. Medical records (considered in law to be the most sensitive of personal information) are not given protection which is appropriate to their status and are treated as general documents.

5. Lack of procedure around dealing with statements of correction to incorrect reports

6. Threats of legal action against Bronwyn’s GP for refusing to disclosure non-injury information. Misuse of criminal provisions in ACC legislation.

7. Collection of information for an unlawful purpose

8. False written and oral statements by ACC staff with the purpose of unlawfully procuring medical reports for pecuniary purposes.

9. Defamatory statements by ACC employees

10. Exceeding lawful powers by investigating injuries for which no claim has been made.

11. Derogatory emails by ACC staff

12. Excessive Access to Bronwyn’s files – 1948 accesses within 3 ½ years, by about 150 different individuals, of which 1100 were in a single one year period.

13. Staff accessing files against management instructions

14. ACC167 Consent – used to coerce claimant’s into authorising otherwise unlawful collections of information.

15. Collection of personal information without claimant’s knowledge &/or attempted collection without knowledge

16. Collection and attempts to collect information unrelated to injury/claim

17. Imbalanced and biased decision making by Corporation

18. Covert/inappropriate communication to assessors which bias & negatively influence outcomes against claimants

19. Decision making without reviewing EOS

20. Lack of workability of electronic medical file for lawfully compliant decision making

21. Coercion, Harassment & Bullying, Unreasonable approach in management of claims. Use of threats of disentitlement to coerce

22. Dictatorial approach of Case Managers, failure to make reasonable accommodations for claimant needs.

23. “cherry picking” of unfavourable phrases from medical reports which contradict the ultimate conclusion.

24. ACC abusing its monopoly position by limiting the pool of qualified medical assessors to a select group (some individuals assessors are paid up in excess of $1 million annually for services), leading to the appearance of bias and unfair market practises.

25. Failure to demand adherence of staff to State Services Code of Conduct and to take appropriate action for  breach

26. Failure of Office of Complaints Investigator to independently investigate complaints

27. Failure of Office of Complaints Investigator to follow a reasonable process when conducting investigations

28. Failure of Office of Complaints Investigator to validate the responses provided by ACC with the claimant for accuracy

29. ACC’s case management approach to Bronwyn is disruptive and destructive of her ability to rehabilitate/work part-time

30. ACC staff deliberately lying and writing false reports

31. ACC staff making clinical decisions without appropriate qualification

32. ACC staff making clinical assessments without medical competency

33. Deliberate interference in independent medical assessments

34. Prejudicial correspondence with independent assessors prior to assessments communicating ACC’s desired outcome – that injuries are spent &/or due to non-injury causes

35. Provision of unqualified, non-specialist opinions, by ACC internal medical advisors, contradicting existing specialist advice, prejudicing independent assessors and compromising their independence

36. Branches/Units having Case Managers who made an initial decision then conduct an administrative review of a matter before being sent to DRSL for review

37. Taking advantage of disabled claimants for actuarial/financial gain

38. Poor decision making which adds cost to the Corporation

39. Poor OCI processes which adds cost to the Corporation

40. Lack of flexibility over assessments/appointments/referrals

41. Lack of reasonable consultation and flexibility over assessments/ appointments/referrals

42. Unreasonable referrals/assessments  processes which are exploitative e.g., chaperones, multi-party assessments, lack of privacy & dignity;

43. Focus on avoiding liability at the expense of effective early rehabilitation

44. ‘Silo’ culture where case managers are unaware of ACC’s own research into rehabilitation best practice

45. Constant churn of case managers – each new case manager is unaware of the medical evidence on file leading to poor decision making and is unaware of claimant’s issues; Avoidance strategy for accountability of actions.

32 thoughts on “Serious process failures by ACC: Bronwyn Pullar’s list

  1. Anal? You miscalculated by $5.6 to $7.2 million you moron! Not including 785 people, rounding down instead of up, thinking claims are cases, claiming the decrease in claim frequency was before 2008 and fatalities are serious injuries etc. You seriously fucked up in this debate photonz1… the right wing needs a new poster boy.

  2. Jackal – you’re a laugh.

    You scream blue murder because you say a 1% or 1.2% figure is so completely wrong, then you give your own figure, which (after you round it up) is 1.3% – a difference of less than 0.1 of 1% percent

    For gods sake – how anal is that?

  3. photonz1, I shouldn’t have to explain basic maths to you. If you take the 2011 figure of 1,582,973 and the 2008 figure of 1,643,758 total claims provided by ACC, the actual decline in claims over three years is 3.84%.

    If you divide that by three to get an average yearly decline from 2008 to 2011 you get 1.27997550600463% or 1.3% per year. Here’s a basic tutorial on how to round numbers that you should be able to understand.

    The problem with your calculation of 1.2% or 3.6% over three years (59175 less claims instead of 60785) is it disregards 1610 less claims over that time period with an estimated average nominal savings of $5.6 to $7.2 million. Please don’t tell me you do your own books photonz1?

    The “less than 1% per year” is the decline over the last 5 years that the ACC gives figures for.

    Wrong photonz1. Claim frequency was increasing until 2008. Please refer to Graph 3.5 from the Financial Condition Report 2011 linked to above. The peak occurred in 2008. The reason ACC states that the decline since 2008 is a “significant reversal” is because claim frequency has been increasing since 2000:

    In 2000, after the period of open competition in the Work Account ended, injury/claim rates in all Accounts began to gradually increase. After 2005 they increased at a rapid pace. This escalation in injury/claim rates occurred in all Accounts except the Work Account where the claim frequency rate decreased over this period. The peak occurred in 2008 just over 380 injuries per 1,000 people (38%).

    So now that we have that lesson out of the way, how does a significant reversal of claim frequency since the peak in 2008 equat to:

    ACC are now paying out on 1.8 (1.5 to 1.62) million cases per year. It’s got out of hand, and needs to be cut back.

    Please also keep in mind that projected income from investments are set to increase… which all adds up to ACC being able to meet it’s financial obligations to provide care and support to New Zealanders when they need it.

    The issue is not one of funding, it is that the process has focussed on declining claimants who do not fit a certain unfair criteria instead of looking for savings in appropriate areas by focussing on those who are abusing the system and increasing preventative measures such as reducing medical misadventure.

  4. The “less than 1% per year” is the decline over the last 5 years that the ACC gives figures for.

    Even using your figures for just three years of 20,000 per year (60,000 decline over 3 years), it’s still a just 1.2% decline per year.

    You repeatedly show you’re not very good with figures. However…

    if 20,000 is not 1.2% of 1,643,758, please tell us what percentage it is?

  5. photonz1 says:

    less than 1% per year

    and then says:

    That’s a 1.2% decline per year.

    Which is also incorrect. Calculators a pretty cheap these days photonz1.

  6. Jackal says ” As usual your argument is based on lies photonz1!”

    That may be so.

    Cause the 1% reduction per year works for your figures too.

    Jackal says “In 2008 there were 1,643,758. That means there were 60,785 less claims in 2011 compared to 2008.”

    Using your figures, if claims have reduced by 20,000 per year for three years, that’s a 1.2% decline per year.

    Longer term over the last five years the difference is even smaller.

    It’s very amusing that you use such strong terms as “bullshit” and “lies” to rubbish your very own figures.

    Oh – and please keep digging your hole about the treatment injuries as well.

  7. photonz says 8735 people having to make claims for treatment injuries per year is an:

    irrelevant and obscure minor fact about medical accidents that applies to almost no one.

    Sicko! Such a huge amount of medical misadventure in New Zealand is a travesty!

  8. Photonz1, where did I argue that treatment injuries were low? Here is the paragraph again:

    BTW, based on recent statistics, about 0.2% of the population experiences a treatment injury that results in an ACC claim. That’s 2 injuries per 1,000 people per year.

    Clearly 8735 people having to make claims for treatment injuries per year is too many.

    What is slightly amusing though is your mangled figures from a faulty operator or calculator. So how exactly did you come up with that “less than 1%” reduction in claims bullshit? As usual your argument is based on lies photonz1!

  9. jackals says “It’s not such a minor fact either…”

    First you argue that it’s very low.

    But when you get caught out using an obscure statistic that applies to only 0.2% of the population, you try to say the opposite.

    Keep digging

    It’s funny.

  10. I simply didn’t divide up the paragraph photonz1.

    It’s not such a minor fact either… that’s around 8735 claims for treatment injuries per year photonz1. Unlike most other claims for injuries, it has seen a dramatic increase over the last few years. Claims for treatment injuries have more than quadrupled since 2005. Along with the ACC misconduct list above, that is where the government should start if it wants to reduce costs while providing better services.

    What is dumb though is you thinking ACC pays out on all the claims it receives.

  11. Jackal said “BTW, based on recent statistics, about 0.2% of the population experiences a treatment injury that results in an ACC claim. That’s 2 injuries per 1,000 people per year.”

    Treatment injury = medical accident – NOT treatment of injuries.

    Then expects us to beleive “I quoted the amount of treatment injuries photonz1 because I was talking about treatment injuries.”

    Do you really expect ANYONE to beleive that you brought in an irrelevant and obscure minor fact about medical accidents that applies to almost no one, to back up your arguement that total claim numbers are not that high?

    That’s funny.

  12. photonz1, please read the document linked to above.

    - You also don’t seem to understand that there’s a difference between the number of total NEW claims per year and the TOTAL claims each year.

    I’ve quoted the Average Annual total claims of 1.5 to 1.62 million. Here is the qualifying paragraph from ACC:

    These averages are based on recent trends in claim rates, claim durations, and the impact of long-term inflationary pressures on the services provided.

    You said ACC were now (ie in 2012) paying out on 1.8 million CASES per year. However ACC states that they PROCESSED 1.8 million CLAIMS in 2007/2008. Some of these are declined meaning no money is paid out on them.

    - you completely contradict yourself by saying there are 1.5 million claims per year, then saying only 2 people in 1000 make a claim each year. For both of your numbers to be true, we would need a population of 3/4 of a billion people.

    I quoted the amount of treatment injuries photonz1 because I was talking about treatment injuries.

    You undervalued the decline in claims by arguing that there’s only been a 1% decrease in claims over the last three years, which is incorrect. You have still not clarified where that figure came from?

    It would seem that you are the one who is confused photonz1. Fatalities are not serious injuries, claims have been declining and there is no financial crisis in ACC that makes the scheme unsustainable. In fact surpluses over the last few years and an increased return from investments mean ACC is able to better meet its long term obligations and provide services to New Zealanders.

    It is apparent that your fear-mongering isn’t based in reality photonz1… there simply is no good reason to privatise ACC.

  13. Jackal – You are so confused about so many things with ACC – you should give up until you actually know what you are talking about.

    – You keep talking about surpluses as if this is something that can be spent.

    It is only because ACC builds up the residual fund with surpluses from it’s investments, that people who suffer long term injuries this year, can still get paid in future years.

    If they spend everything they received in a calendar year, then they would run out of money for anyone who needed help longer than that year.

    – You also don’t seem to understand that there’s a difference between the number of total NEW claims per year and the TOTAL claims each year.

    – you completely contradict yourself by saying there are 1.5 million claims per year, then saying only 2 people in 1000 make a claim each year. For both of your numbers to be true, we would need a population of 3/4 of a billion people.

    Perhaps that’s because you have no idea of what “treatment injuries” are.

    They are not treatment OF injuries. They are injuries received BECAUSE of treatment. i.e. medical accidents.

  14. photonz1, where did you get 1% from? If you have merely taken the 2008 and 2011 figures I’ve provided and divided them by three it would appear your calculator is on the blink. BTW, based on recent statistics, about 0.2% of the population experiences a treatment injury that results in an ACC claim. That’s 2 injuries per 1,000 people per year. Here is what the ACC document linked to above states:

    Since 2009 there has been a significant reversal of the previous increase in Scheme utilisation. This reversal has been driven by a focus on the financial sustainability of the Scheme and achieved through a programme of reform which included significant operational change, as well as a major culture shift within the organisation. The reversal has been supported by the economic downturn which has helped reduce both the incidence and duration of claims. The result has been an improvement in the financial condition and reductions in future levy and appropriation requirements.

    You said there was some sort of crisis in ACC and the scheme was unsustainable. This is clearly untrue as ACC has posted surpluses across its books for the last few years. Let’s look at the facts again:

    Levies in 2009 to 2011 have been more than adequate resulting in an improvement to the overall Account.

    Budget Projections

    6.3 The most recent economic financial update (PREFU (Pre-Election Fiscal Update)) projections for the financial years 2011/12 to 2015/16 reflect the continuation of the efficient use of Scheme funds and a steadying of the increasing trends in long-term Scheme utilisation. Graph 6.3 below shows the annual progression in claim expenditure. Between 2010 and 2011, annual claim expenditure dropped 9.8%. Based on the 2011 PREFU projections claim expenditure is expected to increase 7.8% in 2012, 4.9% in 2013 and 5.9% in 2014. The projections assume injury rates will stabilise but increases in exposure and claims inflation will result in increased claims expenditure. If new injuries rates continue to drop and recovery rates on prior year claims continue to improve then annual claims expenditure will not increase as much.

    ACC has an estimated revenue surplus for the Coverage Year Ending 30 June 2011 of nearly $618 million. Please keep in mind that these projected increases are less than inflation and are mainly due to increases in costs. There are not more claims as you initially argued photonz1, hence my request for you to stick to the facts.

  15. Jackal – do you actually have ANYTHING that refutes my claims?

    Do you really consider a fall of less than 1% per year a “dramatic fall”?

    Really?

  16. photonz1

    Most years there are around 1500 new claims just for fatal accidents – that’s pretty serious. And over 1000 new claims annually just for amputations.

    Here is what the 2011 Annual Financial Condition Report (PDF) reports:

    Fatal 1,300 – 1,500
    Serious Injury 300 – 350
    Recovery Support 100,000 – 120,000
    Medical Only 1.40M – 1.52M
    Total Claims 1.50M – 1.62M

    In 2011 there were 1,582,973 total claims. In 2008 there were 1,643,758. That means there were 60,785 less claims in 2011 compared to 2008. How exactly does that equate to; “It’s got out of hand, and needs to be cut back”?

    If you’re correct, and there were 1000 claims for amputations, it would appear that ACC does not class some amputations as serious injuries.

    That comes from ACCs website for the number of new and existing claims they processed. I’ll quote it below. Actually new claim numbers have not come down much at all, and have been within the range of 1.54 – 1.66 million new claims per year over the last five years.

    When you screamed blue murder that ACC was unsustainable, you claimed there were 1.8 million cases per year photonz1. If the report linked to above is to be believed, you are incorrect. Please refer to Graph 3.5 that shows claim frequency rates have fallen dramatically since 2008.

    First you say:

    ACC are now paying out on 1.8 million cases per year.

    Which turns into:

    The ACC website. Quote “ACC processed 1.8 million claims in 2007/2008.

    Just incase you are not aware, it is currently 2012. You have merely quoted outdated figures and tried to make people believe they are for 2012. This is why debating you is boring, because you’re a manipulator and untruthful photonz1.

    I thought you were all for the govt taking more tax?

    What makes you think that? I’m for our taxes being used appropriately to best benefit society.

  17. Jackal says “From memory, only 350 are for serious accidents.”

    Most years there are around 1500 new claims just for fatal accidents – that’s pretty serious. And over 1000 new claims annually just for amputations.

    Jackal says ” ACC claims have been falling since the harsher regimen, so where did you get that 1.8 million cases per year from?”

    That comes from ACCs website for the number of new and existing claims they processed. I’ll quote it below. Actually new claim numbers have not come down much at all, and have been within the range of 1.54 – 1.66 million new claims per year over the last five years.

    The ACC website. Quote “ACC processed 1.8 million claims in 2007/2008, equating to a claim received every 17 seconds.

    We spent $2.72 billion on treatment and rehabilitation services, including contributing to the costs of:

    2.7 million doctor and nurse visits
    3.3 million physiotherapy visits
    2.5 million rehabilitation services.”

    EVERY day, ACC
    – sent 25,000 letters to clients, levy payers and health providers
    – answered more than 24,000 telephone calls
    – dealt with 7,000 claims.

    See
    http://www.acc.co.nz/for-providers/set-up-and-work-with-acc/PRV00002

    Jackal says “The government will merely reallocate those taxes.”

    I thought you were all for the govt taking more tax?

  18. photonz1

    ACC are continually building up their investment fund through residual premiums so that one day the fund will cover all long term claims, and then we will then no longer have to be charged residual premiums.

    Yes! I’m aware of that. Returns on investments currently pay for 50% to 60% of claims. BTW 1.5 million of the 1.6 million claims in 2011 were for small things like medication. From memory, only 350 are for serious accidents. ACC claims have been falling since the harsher regimen, so where did you get that 1.8 million cases per year from?

    Then we will then no longer have to be charged residual premiums.

    Wishful thinking there photonz1. The government will merely reallocate those taxes.

  19. photonz1 “There was never enough money paid into ACC to pay generous benefits for a whole lifetime.”

    Jackal “Rubbish! ACC looks after lots of people with long term and some lifelong injuries. In 2011, ACC reported surpluses over the past two financial years of $2.5b and $3.5b respectively.”

    You don’t know what you are talking about. I pay two standard ACC premiums – as employer of myself, and as the employee. I also pay another two ACC premiums (employer and employee) into the residual fund to cover all the long term injuries from past years, and past decades.

    The residual fund is because these long term injuries could never be funded by premiums at the time. I also pay into the residual fund premiums for all other employees.

    If ACC had originally charged premiums that covered the cost of acccidents, the residual fund would never had been needed.

    And you also seen confused about ACC’s “surplus”.

    ACC are continually building up their investment fund through residual premiums so that one day the fund will cover all long term claims, and then we will then no longer have to be charged residual premiums.

    If ACC paid out every dollar got in in premiums this year, then there would be no money for someone who has an accident today but will need to get payments for the rest of their life.

  20. Jackal says “People who are permanently injured and can no longer support themselves because of their injuries should be cared for”
    That sounds good to me. (In fact I would like it better if the ‘injury/accident’ part was left out, i.e. if you can’t support yourself, then the state should. Why the need for an accident?; but I digress)

    However, does someone who’s already received a million from another insurance claim fit your criteria? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10794421

    Chapioning Ms Fullar may not be the wisest?? But I’m no pollitician, Winnie sure is though. “New Zealand First leader Winston Peters used Parliamentary privilege yesterday to claim it was “a shabby case involving blackmail, sex, a minister with a conflict of interest”.

    MikeM, I agree with your sentiments. My friend was injured and now in a chair permanently. She got heaps more support/money etc than someone in the same position as her in the hospital bed next door who had a spinal abscess, which is not an accident. Perhaps they should’ve said they tripped and fell backwards onto a dirty needle??

  21. photonz1

    There was never enough money paid into ACC to pay generous benefits for a whole lifetime.

    Rubbish! ACC looks after lots of people with long term and some lifelong injuries. In 2011, ACC reported surpluses over the past two financial years of $2.5b and $3.5b respectively.

    ACC are now paying out on 1.8 million cases per year. It’s got out of hand, and needs to be cut back.

    Most of which are are small claims. ACC state:

    Fewer claims have been lodged with ACC as the result of:

    • the economic downturn in the economy
    • increased ACC, Government and media messaging focusing on the past poor performance of ACC and the resulting threat to the Scheme’s long-term sustainability
    • legislative change

    Please at least try to stick to the facts photonz1.

  22. Thanks for clarifying, Kevin.

    I’m happy to agree with @photonz1 that some aspects of how ACC is set up could be improved. In more than a few ways it encourages people to lie. I’ve only claimed from ACC for small stuff, but it often frustrated me walking into a physio and not being able to get a subsidy because I couldn’t place the exact moment or incident that caused me to jar me knee during tramping on a weekend, or recurred from something anomylous that happened a couple of years ago, despite repeated leading on of staff to just name an incident or make something up so they could just write it on the form and get me a ~50% subsidy. And unofficially I know many people do just make stuff up, because it’s what ACC requires. Two people can have exactly the same injury, but what matters is being able to describe how you got it nice and neat. Does it work this way for big things, too?

    The alleged mis-management, mis-handling and abuse of personal information within ACC by some staff and management is very disturbing all on its own, but ACC could use a revamp of its legislation all the same. I like the public ACC structure hugely compared with what some other countries have and I don’t think any of this is justification for privatisation, but it might not hurt to look closely to see if it’s actually working as intended.

  23. Jackal says “People who are permanently injured and can no longer support themselves because of their injuries should be cared for.”

    There was never enough money paid into ACC to pay generous benefits for a whole lifetime.

    Nor for things like minor insect bites, splinters, minor schoolyard sprains etc.

    Nor to cover all the people who don’t contribute a single cent.

    A guy four houses up the road has been on ACC for years cause he apparently can’t work. But he can chop wood for hours, change the engine in his car – just not do any type of work.

    ACC are now paying out on 1.8 million cases per year. It’s got out of hand, and needs to be cut back.

    The problem is people are trying to get more out of ACC, than they ever paid for (if they paid anything at all).

  24. photonz1

    They could change or retrain into another job, like most people do several times in their life, but instead they fight ACC, for their “right” to be paid for the rest of their life – something that was never paid for.

    ACC is meant to help people retrain into other professions if they can. People who are permanently injured and can no longer support themselves because of their injuries should be cared for.

    The problem here is that the crisis in ACC is eroding public confidence in what is a world-leading scheme. It’s suspicious that this is happening at the precise time National will need to sell their plans to open up accident insurance to private insurers.

  25. The 45 point list is, in fact an amalgam of Bronwyn Pullar’s own experience and the experience of others around the country who work closely with ACC claimants. I know that Ms Pullar has plenty of documentation to substantiate the issues she has personally encountered, and it would be very strongly in the public interest for this to be examined as evidence in an independent inquiry.

    Exactly how the spreadsheet ended up being sent to Ms Pullar is one of the topics that the Privacy Commissioner’s investigation will consider, but I have no evidence that it was anything other than an accident. So far as I can tell, Ms. Pullar showed it to one journalist, but I don’t know if that was with the personally identifying information like names still on, or removed. ACC itself has also shown journalists the spreadsheet (presumably to help the get their heads around what the document was like).

    No doubt Bronwyn Pullar is seeking some personal benefit from some of the issues she has raised. But I have also seen enough evidence to convince me that a substantial part of her motivation is to ensure better service to other ACC claimants. It obviously suits ACC and the Government to demonise her, but I strongly encourage everyone to recognise their vested interest in doing so.

  26. I still dont understand how she got sent these 6000 files in the first place.

    All these files should be private, and if our Privacy Commissioner had teeth, there would be a big line of people waiting to be slapped.

  27. So we have someone complaining about the privacy of HER files, while apparently handing over the private files of 6000 OTHER claimants to the media.

    Still no one has even bothered to ask WHY that happened.

    What about the stress caused to those 6000 by that?

    Perhaps they can all claim ACC for their trauma

  28. I saw the list on Stuff and on the face it looks serious.

    Is there a public copy anywhere of Ms Pullar’s documentation to back up the listed items as of yet? Presumably she didn’t just write a list of alleged bad things about ACC, and actually has documented examples, explanations, collaborative claims from others, and citations somewhere.

  29. The problem with ACC is the money paid in has never been enough to pay out generous amounts for a whole lifetime.

    The next problem is we have people who spend their lives fighting ACC because they had an accident and can’t do the career they did ten years ago.

    They could change or retrain into another job, like most people do several times in their life, but instead they fight ACC, for their “right” to be paid for the rest of their life – something that was never paid for.

    We have people missing a hand or a limb working is the same professions as people who have been on ACC for years because of a much more minor disability from an accident – that’s wrong.

    ACC needs to have a limit – it should provide cover for a certain number of years.

    Anybody who wants longer, should be allowed to choose to pay for extra cover if they want it.

    Such a large number of people rip off ACC for such large amounts of money, that they can’t help but be contantly suspicious – see
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0807/S00075.htm

  30. Kevin, I am really grateful you are pushing the real issues regarding this whole ACC debacle. It is almost like the mystery of who leaked the email is providing a useful smokescreen for what was really revealed and that we have an open Pandora’s box exposing the lies, fabrications, mismanagement, unprofessionalism and unethical behaviour that forms the culture of this organisation. Not to investigate this will essentially endorse the continuation of this culture.

    The stupidity of the government’s claim that you can improve frontline services by cutting budgets is all revealed. http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/fears-acc-job-cuts-impact-delivery-2759393

Comments are closed.