John Judge had to go. Today's announcement of the departure of the ACC board chief was hardly a shock - see: ACC Board chair John Judge goes. Leaving John Judge in charge of ACC until the privacy breach inquiries were finished - and only then asking questions about ACC's police complaint - could only be seen as implicit support from the Government, no matter how they may try to avoid saying it in public. So Judith Collins was probably under pressure to find a way to be rid of Judge. She couldn't allow the ACC mess to fester. After all, National's political management has been severely tested over class sizes, and Collins' previous decision to sue Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little was already widely seen to be a poor decision in terms of getting past the bad publicity. Judge's scalp was necessary to begin the clean-up. But will it be enough?
Foreshadowing today's departure, Patrick Gower said last night that the opposition parties smell more blood and Collins and Key would have a tough time in Parliament today defending Judge and CEO Ralph Stewart, particularly over claims they misled over having heard the recording at the centre of the furore - see Gower's Questions over ACC board's credibility. So Ralph Stewart must be feeling uncomfortable now too.
If the class size backdown was a train wreck, ACC has become it's slo-mo equivalent, continuing to scythe victims in its path. Although it might all seem very drawn out, the body count just keeps growing. The decision to replace Judge with Paula Rebstock will also be a controversial one. If Steven Joyce has become the 'Minister for Everything' then Rebstock seems to be in the running to be the 'Civil Servant for All Things'.
If you missed it, it's well worth watching TV3's 60 Minutes investigation into the Bronwyn Pullar's ACC scandal: The Eye of the Storm. While it is a sympathetic account of Pullar's story the programme scores some damning blows against ACC, including it's CEO and Chair. Pullar projects herself as a genuine whistleblower, a former powerbroker and highflyer who finds herself at the mercy of a powerful corporation and is fighting back against their bullying - not just for herself, but on behalf all of ACC's clients. Motivations are almost impossible to prove but the evidence, as the police found, doesn't support the accusations ACC has thrown at her.
Today's Herald editorial concedes that heads may have to roll at ACC but is more skeptical about Pullar's and Boag's claims that no blackmail was implied. The editorial, Collins may have to swing axe at ACC, cites Boag's recorded response of 'Absolutely' at the meeting when an ACC manager suggested that Pullar would return the leaked case files if a settlement was made. But the editorial misses the fact that in that same recording Pullar herself was unequivocal in denying that she would use the files in any way that would violate client's privacy. It is also clear that it was ACC that explicitly linked Pullar's ACC settlement to return of the client files. So who was actually blackmailing who? Is it really appropriate for public servants to offer financial settlements in a way that might make their privacy leak controversies go away?
