Knowledge of potential criminal activity by government employees
Canterbury Victim made this Official Information request to Grant Robertson
This request has an unknown status. We're waiting for Canterbury Victim to read a recent response and update the status.
From: Canterbury Victim
Dear Grant Robertson,
I am making requests for official information. These requests are being made on the grounds of public interest in relation to the matters of transparency; participation; accountability; administration of justice; health, safety and the environment.
Please note that the requests are not just for documents, but also information. As such with regards to the Office of the Ombudsman guidance document “The OIA for Ministers and Agencies” these requests for official information include “information held in the memory of” the Minister addressed and only the Minister addressed, not the staff of the office of the Minister. As such unless there is a document which provides the information requested, the Minister must be questioned to provide the held information from their memory. No sections of this request can be denied based on Section 18(e) unless they are also denied on Section 18(g).
Each of the points below is an individual request for official information. If any of the responses need to be extended that should not impact delivery of responses for those that do not require an extension. Any decision to extend a deadline should be accompanied with a Section 22 response.
Any information that is denied should be accompanied with a Section 22 response providing the reasons for the decision to deny the information. These should include the dates and times that the Minister was questioned about their memory of the official information.
As per the Office of the Ombudsman guidance a clarification requested will only reset the deadline for the individual requests where a clarification is provided, the remainder of the requests for official information in this communication will have the original deadline remain.
Further in relation to the Office of the Ombudsman guidance “The agency’s primary legal obligation is to notify the requester of the decision on the request ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’. The reference to 20 working days is not the de facto goal but the absolute maximum (unless it is extended appropriately).” If the notification does happen on the last day of the 20 working day deadline please provide a Section 22 response as to why the decision was made that it was not ‘reasonably practicable’ to provide the decision sooner.
I am not providing a Privacy Waiver, and so any response to these requests for official information should have my personal information redacted.
These requests will make reference to official information held within the document located at https://bit.ly/3K29MME Despite their being other Ministers that may have official information with regards to the content of that document, this request for official information is about official information held by the Minister addressed and therefore should not be transferred and instead be denied if the information is not held by the addressed Minister.
1. When did the Minister first become aware of the document that exists at https://bit.ly/3K29MME? If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of the document before receiving this request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.
2. The linked document includes official information where government employees at Southern Response have been altering documents and instructing others to alter documents they did not author in order to create a false representation of facts and timelines where those documents were then used to cause loss by deception. When did the Minister first become aware of these or similar events? If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.
3. The linked document includes official information where Southern Response employees conspired with a Consent Team Leader at Christchurch City Council to get agreement that a building consent would be granted despite the repair methodology did not match the submitted technical documents, was in violation of the MBIE repair guidance, and ultimately would result in a house repair that they knew had not been approved as meeting the Building Code. When did the Minister first become aware of these or similar events? This question is not limited to the example given in the linked document and can relate to any instance of this deceptive behaviour. If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.
4. The linked document includes information regarding Southern Response committing a significant breach of the Fair Insurance Code (the accepted New Zealand Code of Ethics for the Insurance Industry) so significantly that the behaviour of the involved government employees would bring the entirety of the New Zealand Insurance Industry into disrepute. When did the Minister first become aware that government employees were responsible for the first ever unresolved significant breach of the Fair Insurance Code being referred to the Insurance Council of New Zealand? If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.
5. The linked document includes information regarding the Dispute Resolution Scheme (regulated by the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008) specifically not addressing matters of dishonesty in their assessment of behaviour of the government staff despite finding that Southern Response significantly breached the Fair Insurance Code. When did the Minister first become aware that the Dispute Resolution Scheme declined to consider dishonesty, when specifically asked to address matters of dishonesty in the details of the complaint, when assessing violations of the insurance industry Code of Ethics? This question is not limited to the example given in the linked document and can relate to any instance of this behaviour. If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.
6. The linked document includes official information regarding the Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) communicating with the CEO of Southern Response stating that the complaint of the behaviour of Southern Response had been heard at their last meeting despite us being told that it would not be heard at that meeting; and that had ICNZ not forced us to go through the Dispute Resolution Scheme that ICNZ would have found Southern Response in violation of the Code at that meeting, but instead ICNZ delayed the complaint of two cancer patients to allow Southern Response to be better prepared should the DIspute Resolution Scheme refer the complaint back to ICNZ. Southern Response then went on to utilise the law firm where a former partner, and consultant of that law firm is a sitting member of the ICNZ committee that assessed Southern Response’s behaviour. When did the Minister first become aware of these events? If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.
7. The linked document includes information regarding the Dispute Resolution Scheme finding that the Significant Breach of the Fair Insurance Code was unresolved despite the apology and ex gratia payment, but the Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) stating that the complaint was resolved by the apology and ex gratia payment. This is despite direct communication between Southern Response and ICNZ where Anthony Honeybone states that the apology was not sincere and instead was simply easier than telling me how I was wrong about Southern Response’s behaviour. The linked document also addresses all parts of the Southern Response apology with official information to show that it was not sincere. When did the Minister first become aware of these events? If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.
8. The linked document includes information regarding government employees setting a one week deadline for me after I told them I was in hospital and needed to reduce stress. The deadline required me to provide engineering information because they would not accept their own engineering advice that their desired repair methodology was inappropriate. These actions have been described by the New Zealand Police as “seems inappropriate and appears to be taking advantage of your medical circumstances”. When did the Minister first become aware of these events? If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.
9. Please provide the dates for each of these connected events if they happened with the Minister all for a single official information requestor within the last 6 months:
a. The Minister denied the existence of official information based on section 18(e)
b. The requestor provided evidence that documents do exist with the requested information
c. The Minister then stated that it was already known the documents existed, but that there was a desire to not provide the documents because they contain discussions that are too “full and frank” to be made public
d. The Minister then denied the request again based instead on 9(2)(ba)
If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this request for official information, then the please deny this request based on Section 18(e) and 18(g).
10. If request 9 is not denied then please provide the date at which the Minister was first informed that there was belief that those engaged with the Minister in the “full and frank” conversations may be committing crimes. If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming informed of criminal behaviour then please deny this request based on Section 18(e) and 18(g).
As I have a significant amount of additional information to make public in relation to these matters and an unknown number of request and response cycles in order to allow the matters of public interest to be adequately addressed, I would appreciate it if these requests were addressed as a matter of urgency.
Yours faithfully,
“Canterbury Victim”
From: Hon Grant Robertson
Kia Ora,
Thank you for contacting Hon Grant Robertson, Deputy Prime Minister,
Minister of Finance, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Sport and
Recreation, MP for Wellington Central.
The Minister considers all correspondence important and appreciates you
taking the time to write. As Hon Grant Robertson receives a large amount
of correspondence it is not always possible to personally reply to all
emails. If your correspondence is diary related, requests will be
processed accordingly. If your correspondence requires a response, you
can expect a response in due course. If your correspondence relates to a
another portfolio, your correspondence will be transferred to the
appropriate Minister. If your correspondence expresses an opinion it will
be noted.
Latest information from the Beehive can be found
here: [1]https://www.beehive.govt.nz/
If you are concerned that someone is going to hurt themselves or someone
else, you can call your local mental health crisis team.
A full list of numbers is available
here: [2]www.health.govt.nz/your-health/services-and-support/health-care-services/mental-health-services/crisis-assessment-teams
Thank you for the taking the time to write.
Ngā mihi,
Office of Hon Grant Robertson
Member of Parliament for Wellington Central
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister of Finance | Minister for Infrastructure | Minister for Sport and
Recreation |
Freepost: Private Bag 18 888 |Parliament Buildings |Wellington 6011 |Ph:
+64 4 817 8703
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/
2. https://ps-cas-array/ecp/[email address]/Organize/www.health.govt.nz/your-health/services-and-support/health-care-services/mental-health-services/crisis-assessment-teams
From: Hon Grant Robertson
Dear writer
I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your official information request dated 25 November 2022. We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as possible, and in any event no later than 23 December 2022, being 20 working days after the day your request was received. If we are unable to respond to your request by then, we will notify you of an extension of that timeframe.
Katy Greco-Ainslie | Private Secretary | Office of Hon Grant Robertson
Deputy Prime Minister | Minister of Finance | Minister for Infrastructure | Minister for Sport and Recreation
Member of Parliament for Wellington Central
Private Bag 18 888 |Parliament Buildings |Wellington 6011 www.beehive.govt.nz
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents. If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
Please note information about meetings related to the Ministers’ portfolios will be proactively released (this does not include personal or constituency matters). For each meeting in scope, the summary would list: date, time (start and finish), brief description, location, who the meeting was with, and the portfolio. If you attend a meeting with the Minister on behalf of an organisation, the name of the organisation will be released. If you are a senior staff member at an organisation, or meet with the Minister in your personal capacity, your name may also be released. The location of the meeting will be released, unless it is a private residence. The proactive release will be consistent with the provisions in the Official Information Act, including privacy considerations. Under the Privacy Act 1993 you have the right to ask for a copy of any personal information we hold about you, and to ask for it to be corrected if you think it is wrong. If you’d like to ask for a copy of your information, or to have it corrected, or are concerned about the release of your information in the meeting disclosure, please contact the sender. You can read more about the proactive release policy at https://www.dia.govt.nz/Proactive-Releas...
-----Original Message-----
From: Canterbury Victim [mailto:[FOI #21219 email]]
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2022 1:46 AM
To: G Robertson (MIN) <[email address]>
Subject: Official Information request - Knowledge of potential criminal activity by government employees
Dear Grant Robertson,
I am making requests for official information. These requests are being made on the grounds of public interest in relation to the matters of transparency; participation; accountability; administration of justice; health, safety and the environment.
Please note that the requests are not just for documents, but also information. As such with regards to the Office of the Ombudsman guidance document “The OIA for Ministers and Agencies” these requests for official information include “information held in the memory of” the Minister addressed and only the Minister addressed, not the staff of the office of the Minister. As such unless there is a document which provides the information requested, the Minister must be questioned to provide the held information from their memory. No sections of this request can be denied based on Section 18(e) unless they are also denied on Section 18(g).
Each of the points below is an individual request for official information. If any of the responses need to be extended that should not impact delivery of responses for those that do not require an extension. Any decision to extend a deadline should be accompanied with a Section 22 response.
Any information that is denied should be accompanied with a Section 22 response providing the reasons for the decision to deny the information. These should include the dates and times that the Minister was questioned about their memory of the official information.
As per the Office of the Ombudsman guidance a clarification requested will only reset the deadline for the individual requests where a clarification is provided, the remainder of the requests for official information in this communication will have the original deadline remain.
Further in relation to the Office of the Ombudsman guidance “The agency’s primary legal obligation is to notify the requester of the decision on the request ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’. The reference to 20 working days is not the de facto goal but the absolute maximum (unless it is extended appropriately).” If the notification does happen on the last day of the 20 working day deadline please provide a Section 22 response as to why the decision was made that it was not ‘reasonably practicable’ to provide the decision sooner.
I am not providing a Privacy Waiver, and so any response to these requests for official information should have my personal information redacted.
These requests will make reference to official information held within the document located at https://bit.ly/3K29MME Despite their being other Ministers that may have official information with regards to the content of that document, this request for official information is about official information held by the Minister addressed and therefore should not be transferred and instead be denied if the information is not held by the addressed Minister.
1. When did the Minister first become aware of the document that exists at https://bit.ly/3K29MME? If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of the document before receiving this request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.
2. The linked document includes official information where government employees at Southern Response have been altering documents and instructing others to alter documents they did not author in order to create a false representation of facts and timelines where those documents were then used to cause loss by deception. When did the Minister first become aware of these or similar events? If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.
3. The linked document includes official information where Southern Response employees conspired with a Consent Team Leader at Christchurch City Council to get agreement that a building consent would be granted despite the repair methodology did not match the submitted technical documents, was in violation of the MBIE repair guidance, and ultimately would result in a house repair that they knew had not been approved as meeting the Building Code. When did the Minister first become aware of these or similar events? This question is not limited to the example given in the linked document and can relate to any instance of this deceptive behaviour. If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.
4. The linked document includes information regarding Southern Response committing a significant breach of the Fair Insurance Code (the accepted New Zealand Code of Ethics for the Insurance Industry) so significantly that the behaviour of the involved government employees would bring the entirety of the New Zealand Insurance Industry into disrepute. When did the Minister first become aware that government employees were responsible for the first ever unresolved significant breach of the Fair Insurance Code being referred to the Insurance Council of New Zealand? If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.
5. The linked document includes information regarding the Dispute Resolution Scheme (regulated by the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008) specifically not addressing matters of dishonesty in their assessment of behaviour of the government staff despite finding that Southern Response significantly breached the Fair Insurance Code. When did the Minister first become aware that the Dispute Resolution Scheme declined to consider dishonesty, when specifically asked to address matters of dishonesty in the details of the complaint, when assessing violations of the insurance industry Code of Ethics? This question is not limited to the example given in the linked document and can relate to any instance of this behaviour. If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.
6. The linked document includes official information regarding the Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) communicating with the CEO of Southern Response stating that the complaint of the behaviour of Southern Response had been heard at their last meeting despite us being told that it would not be heard at that meeting; and that had ICNZ not forced us to go through the Dispute Resolution Scheme that ICNZ would have found Southern Response in violation of the Code at that meeting, but instead ICNZ delayed the complaint of two cancer patients to allow Southern Response to be better prepared should the DIspute Resolution Scheme refer the complaint back to ICNZ. Southern Response then went on to utilise the law firm where a former partner, and consultant of that law firm is a sitting member of the ICNZ committee that assessed Southern Response’s behaviour. When did the Minister first become aware of these events? If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.
7. The linked document includes information regarding the Dispute Resolution Scheme finding that the Significant Breach of the Fair Insurance Code was unresolved despite the apology and ex gratia payment, but the Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) stating that the complaint was resolved by the apology and ex gratia payment. This is despite direct communication between Southern Response and ICNZ where Anthony Honeybone states that the apology was not sincere and instead was simply easier than telling me how I was wrong about Southern Response’s behaviour. The linked document also addresses all parts of the Southern Response apology with official information to show that it was not sincere. When did the Minister first become aware of these events? If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.
8. The linked document includes information regarding government employees setting a one week deadline for me after I told them I was in hospital and needed to reduce stress. The deadline required me to provide engineering information because they would not accept their own engineering advice that their desired repair methodology was inappropriate. These actions have been described by the New Zealand Police as “seems inappropriate and appears to be taking advantage of your medical circumstances”. When did the Minister first become aware of these events? If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.
9. Please provide the dates for each of these connected events if they happened with the Minister all for a single official information requestor within the last 6 months:
a. The Minister denied the existence of official information based on section 18(e) b. The requestor provided evidence that documents do exist with the requested information c. The Minister then stated that it was already known the documents existed, but that there was a desire to not provide the documents because they contain discussions that are too “full and frank” to be made public d. The Minister then denied the request again based instead on 9(2)(ba)
If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this request for official information, then the please deny this request based on Section 18(e) and 18(g).
10. If request 9 is not denied then please provide the date at which the Minister was first informed that there was belief that those engaged with the Minister in the “full and frank” conversations may be committing crimes. If there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming informed of criminal behaviour then please deny this request based on Section 18(e) and 18(g).
As I have a significant amount of additional information to make public in relation to these matters and an unknown number of request and response cycles in order to allow the matters of public interest to be adequately addressed, I would appreciate it if these requests were addressed as a matter of urgency.
Yours faithfully,
“Canterbury Victim”
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #21219 email]
Is [Grant Robertson request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to Grant Robertson? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________
hide quoted sections
From: Canterbury Victim
Dear Hon Grant Robertson,
Please note that I mistakenly referenced Section 22 of the LGOIMA, these should be references to Section 23 of the OIA.
Yours sincerely,
Canterbury Victim
From: Hon Grant Robertson
Letter from Hon Grant Robertson, Minister of Finance, attached.
Private Secretary | Office of Hon Grant Robertson
Deputy Prime Minister | Minister of Finance | Minister for
Infrastructure | Minister for Sport and Recreation
Member of Parliament for Wellington Central
Private Bag 18 888 |Parliament Buildings |Wellington 6011
[1]www.beehive.govt.nz
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and
intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient,
you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or
make use of its contents. If received in error you are asked to destroy
this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is
appreciated.
Please note information about meetings related to the Ministers’
portfolios will be proactively released (this does not include personal or
constituency matters). For each meeting in scope, the summary would list:
date, time (start and finish), brief description, location, who the
meeting was with, and the portfolio. If you attend a meeting with the
Minister on behalf of an organisation, the name of the organisation will
be released. If you are a senior staff member at an organisation, or meet
with the Minister in your personal capacity, your name may also be
released. The location of the meeting will be released, unless it is a
private residence. The proactive release will be consistent with the
provisions in the Official Information Act, including privacy
considerations. Under the Privacy Act 1993 you have the right to ask for a
copy of any personal information we hold about you, and to ask for it to
be corrected if you think it is wrong. If you’d like to ask for a copy of
your information, or to have it corrected, or are concerned about the
release of your information in the meeting disclosure, please contact the
sender. You can read more about the proactive release policy at
[2]https://www.dia.govt.nz/Proactive-Releas...
-----Original Message-----
From: Canterbury Victim
[[3]mailto:[FOI #21219 email]]
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2022 1:46 AM
To: G Robertson (MIN) <[4][email address]>
Subject: Official Information request - Knowledge of potential criminal
activity by government employees
Dear Grant Robertson,
I am making requests for official information. These requests are being
made on the grounds of public interest in relation to the matters of
transparency; participation; accountability; administration of justice;
health, safety and the environment.
Please note that the requests are not just for documents, but also
information. As such with regards to the Office of the Ombudsman guidance
document “The OIA for Ministers and Agencies” these requests for official
information include “information held in the memory of” the Minister
addressed and only the Minister addressed, not the staff of the office of
the Minister. As such unless there is a document which provides the
information requested, the Minister must be questioned to provide the held
information from their memory. No sections of this request can be denied
based on Section 18(e) unless they are also denied on Section 18(g).
Each of the points below is an individual request for official
information. If any of the responses need to be extended that should not
impact delivery of responses for those that do not require an extension.
Any decision to extend a deadline should be accompanied with a Section 22
response.
Any information that is denied should be accompanied with a Section 22
response providing the reasons for the decision to deny the information.
These should include the dates and times that the Minister was questioned
about their memory of the official information.
As per the Office of the Ombudsman guidance a clarification requested will
only reset the deadline for the individual requests where a clarification
is provided, the remainder of the requests for official information in
this communication will have the original deadline remain.
Further in relation to the Office of the Ombudsman guidance “The agency’s
primary legal obligation is to notify the requester of the decision on the
request ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’. The reference to 20 working
days is not the de facto goal but the absolute maximum (unless it is
extended appropriately).” If the notification does happen on the last day
of the 20 working day deadline please provide a Section 22 response as to
why the decision was made that it was not ‘reasonably practicable’ to
provide the decision sooner.
I am not providing a Privacy Waiver, and so any response to these requests
for official information should have my personal information redacted.
These requests will make reference to official information held within the
document located at [5]https://bit.ly/3K29MME Despite their being other
Ministers that may have official information with regards to the content
of that document, this request for official information is about official
information held by the Minister addressed and therefore should not be
transferred and instead be denied if the information is not held by the
addressed Minister.
1. When did the Minister first become aware of the document that exists at
[6]https://bit.ly/3K29MME? If there does not exist a document with this
information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will
fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware
of the document before receiving this request for official information,
then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil
the request.
2. The linked document includes official information where government
employees at Southern Response have been altering documents and
instructing others to alter documents they did not author in order to
create a false representation of facts and timelines where those documents
were then used to cause loss by deception. When did the Minister first
become aware of these or similar events? If there does not exist a
document with this information then an approximate date from the
Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no
recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this
request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to
recall their memory will fulfil the request.
3. The linked document includes official information where Southern
Response employees conspired with a Consent Team Leader at Christchurch
City Council to get agreement that a building consent would be granted
despite the repair methodology did not match the submitted technical
documents, was in violation of the MBIE repair guidance, and ultimately
would result in a house repair that they knew had not been approved as
meeting the Building Code. When did the Minister first become aware of
these or similar events? This question is not limited to the example
given in the linked document and can relate to any instance of this
deceptive behaviour. If there does not exist a document with this
information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will
fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware
of such events before receiving this request for official information,
then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil
the request.
4. The linked document includes information regarding Southern Response
committing a significant breach of the Fair Insurance Code (the accepted
New Zealand Code of Ethics for the Insurance Industry) so significantly
that the behaviour of the involved government employees would bring the
entirety of the New Zealand Insurance Industry into disrepute. When did
the Minister first become aware that government employees were responsible
for the first ever unresolved significant breach of the Fair Insurance
Code being referred to the Insurance Council of New Zealand? If there does
not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from
the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no
recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this
request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to
recall their memory will fulfil the request.
5. The linked document includes information regarding the Dispute
Resolution Scheme (regulated by the Financial Service Providers
(Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008) specifically not
addressing matters of dishonesty in their assessment of behaviour of the
government staff despite finding that Southern Response significantly
breached the Fair Insurance Code. When did the Minister first become
aware that the Dispute Resolution Scheme declined to consider dishonesty,
when specifically asked to address matters of dishonesty in the details of
the complaint, when assessing violations of the insurance industry Code of
Ethics? This question is not limited to the example given in the linked
document and can relate to any instance of this behaviour. If there does
not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from
the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no
recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this
request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to
recall their memory will fulfil the request.
6. The linked document includes official information regarding the
Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) communicating with the CEO of
Southern Response stating that the complaint of the behaviour of Southern
Response had been heard at their last meeting despite us being told that
it would not be heard at that meeting; and that had ICNZ not forced us to
go through the Dispute Resolution Scheme that ICNZ would have found
Southern Response in violation of the Code at that meeting, but instead
ICNZ delayed the complaint of two cancer patients to allow Southern
Response to be better prepared should the DIspute Resolution Scheme refer
the complaint back to ICNZ. Southern Response then went on to utilise the
law firm where a former partner, and consultant of that law firm is a
sitting member of the ICNZ committee that assessed Southern Response’s
behaviour. When did the Minister first become aware of these events? If
there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate
date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister
has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this
request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to
recall their memory will fulfil the request.
7. The linked document includes information regarding the Dispute
Resolution Scheme finding that the Significant Breach of the Fair
Insurance Code was unresolved despite the apology and ex gratia payment,
but the Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) stating that the complaint
was resolved by the apology and ex gratia payment. This is despite direct
communication between Southern Response and ICNZ where Anthony Honeybone
states that the apology was not sincere and instead was simply easier than
telling me how I was wrong about Southern Response’s behaviour. The
linked document also addresses all parts of the Southern Response apology
with official information to show that it was not sincere. When did the
Minister first become aware of these events? If there does not exist a
document with this information then an approximate date from the
Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no
recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this
request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to
recall their memory will fulfil the request.
8. The linked document includes information regarding government employees
setting a one week deadline for me after I told them I was in hospital and
needed to reduce stress. The deadline required me to provide engineering
information because they would not accept their own engineering advice
that their desired repair methodology was inappropriate. These actions
have been described by the New Zealand Police as “seems inappropriate and
appears to be taking advantage of your medical circumstances”. When did
the Minister first become aware of these events? If there does not exist
a document with this information then an approximate date from the
Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no
recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this
request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to
recall their memory will fulfil the request.
9. Please provide the dates for each of these connected events if they
happened with the Minister all for a single official information requestor
within the last 6 months:
a. The Minister denied the existence of official information based on
section 18(e) b. The requestor provided evidence that documents do exist
with the requested information c. The Minister then stated that it was
already known the documents existed, but that there was a desire to not
provide the documents because they contain discussions that are too “full
and frank” to be made public d. The Minister then denied the request again
based instead on 9(2)(ba)
If there does not exist a document with this information then an
approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If
the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before
receiving this request for official information, then the please deny this
request based on Section 18(e) and 18(g).
10. If request 9 is not denied then please provide the date at which the
Minister was first informed that there was belief that those engaged with
the Minister in the “full and frank” conversations may be committing
crimes. If there does not exist a document with this information then an
approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If
the Minister has no recollection of becoming informed of criminal
behaviour then please deny this request based on Section 18(e) and 18(g).
As I have a significant amount of additional information to make public in
relation to these matters and an unknown number of request and response
cycles in order to allow the matters of public interest to be adequately
addressed, I would appreciate it if these requests were addressed as a
matter of urgency.
Yours faithfully,
“Canterbury Victim”
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[7][FOI #21219 email]
Is [8][Grant Robertson request email] the wrong address for Official
Information requests to Grant Robertson? If so, please contact us using
this form:
[9]https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[10]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
2. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. mailto:[FOI #21219 email]
4. mailto:[email address]
5. https://bit.ly/3K29MME
6. https://bit.ly/3K29MME
7. mailto:[FOI #21219 email]
8. mailto:[Grant Robertson request email]
9. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
10. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
hide quoted sections
From: Canterbury Victim
Dear Hon Grant Robertson,
** Request 4
With regards to request 4, the Minister appears to have refused the request based on 18(e) and 18(g). However, in a letter dated 14 July 2021 and signed by Hon Grant Robertson, in response to the question “When did the Minister first become aware that Southern Response was found guilty of a Significant Breach of the Fair Insurance Code?” the response was ”I was first notified of this on 30 July 2019 in a Quarterly Report from Southern Response” and “The matter was also raised in the October 2018 and January 2020 quarterly reports.”
Note that Hon Grant Robertson had transferred some requests for official information to Hon Dr David Clark who stated in a letter dated 16 June 2021 that “Minister Robertson became aware of the circumstances you raise on 12 August 2019.”
As it appears there are documents and information held by Hon Grant Robertson that appear to contradict the response made to request 4 of this set of OIA requests, please provide a Section 23 response to the decision to refuse providing official information in response to this request. Please also provide a Section 23 response to the decision to provide the official information on the other occasions stated above. I would like to understand how the Minister was unable to come to the same decision each time.
In case there is seen to be a difference in the requests then as per the document “Information not held A guide to sections 18(e) and (g) of the OIA and sections 17(e) and (g) of the LGOIMA“ it is stated that “Agencies must consider consulting the requester before refusing a request under section 18(e).“ Please provide a Section 23 response regarding the decision to not consult me before refusing the requests under Section 18(e).
** Remaining requests
The Minister has not responded to each request for official information separately. At the beginning of the document I stated “Each of the points below is an individual request for official information,” and for each request I presented options for responses to limit the scope of the requests in a way that I felt would fulfil my requests. Please provide a Section 23 response for the decision to respond in such a way that did not allow for an understanding of the results of each decision made against the 10 requests for official information.
The Minister’s response refuses to provide official information. In the document I stated “Any information that is denied should be accompanied with a Section 23 response providing the reasons for the decision to deny the information.” Please provide a section 23 response for the decision to not include a section 23 response for each of the refusals of official information. Please also provide the Section 23 responses for the refusals themselves, as previously requested. Please see the Office of the Ombudsman document “Requests for reasons for a decision or recommendation A guide to section 23 of the OIA and section 22 of the LGOIMA“ for information on how to properly respond to a section 23 request.
In the document “Information not held A guide to sections 18(e) and (g) of the OIA and sections 17(e) and (g) of the LGOIMA“ it is stated that “Agencies must consider consulting the requester before refusing a request under section 18(e).“ Please provide a Section 23 response regarding the decision to not consult me before refusing the requests under Section 18(e).
Yours sincerely,
“Canterbury Victim”
From: Hon Grant Robertson
Good morning
On behalf of Hon Grant Robertson, Minister of Finance, thank you for your further email.
As stated in the Minister's original response to you, you have the right to ask the Ombudsman to investigate and review this decision should you wish.
Kind regards
Private Secretary | Office of Hon Grant Robertson
Minister of Finance | Minister for Sport and Recreation
Leader of the House
Member of Parliament for Wellington Central
Private Bag 18 888 |Parliament Buildings |Wellington 6011 www.beehive.govt.nz
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents. If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
Please note information about meetings related to the Ministers’ portfolios will be proactively released (this does not include personal or constituency matters). For each meeting in scope, the summary would list: date, time (start and finish), brief description, location, who the meeting was with, and the portfolio. If you attend a meeting with the Minister on behalf of an organisation, the name of the organisation will be released. If you are a senior staff member at an organisation, or meet with the Minister in your personal capacity, your name may also be released. The location of the meeting will be released, unless it is a private residence. The proactive release will be consistent with the provisions in the Official Information Act, including privacy considerations. Under the Privacy Act 1993 you have the right to ask for a copy of any personal information we hold about you, and to ask for it to be corrected if you think it is wrong. If you’d like to ask for a copy of your information, or to have it corrected, or are concerned about the release of your information in the meeting disclosure, please contact the sender. You can read more about the proactive release policy at https://www.dia.govt.nz/Proactive-Releas...
-----Original Message-----
From: Canterbury Victim [mailto:[FOI #21219 email]]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 February 2023 11:58 PM
To: Hon Grant Robertson <[email address]>
Subject: Re: FW: Official Information request - Knowledge of potential criminal activity by government employees
Dear Hon Grant Robertson,
** Request 4
With regards to request 4, the Minister appears to have refused the request based on 18(e) and 18(g). However, in a letter dated 14 July 2021 and signed by Hon Grant Robertson, in response to the question “When did the Minister first become aware that Southern Response was found guilty of a Significant Breach of the Fair Insurance Code?” the response was ”I was first notified of this on 30 July 2019 in a Quarterly Report from Southern Response” and “The matter was also raised in the October 2018 and January 2020 quarterly reports.”
Note that Hon Grant Robertson had transferred some requests for official information to Hon Dr David Clark who stated in a letter dated 16 June 2021 that “Minister Robertson became aware of the circumstances you raise on 12 August 2019.”
As it appears there are documents and information held by Hon Grant Robertson that appear to contradict the response made to request 4 of this set of OIA requests, please provide a Section 23 response to the decision to refuse providing official information in response to this request. Please also provide a Section 23 response to the decision to provide the official information on the other occasions stated above. I would like to understand how the Minister was unable to come to the same decision each time.
In case there is seen to be a difference in the requests then as per the document “Information not held A guide to sections 18(e) and (g) of the OIA and sections 17(e) and (g) of the LGOIMA“ it is stated that “Agencies must consider consulting the requester before refusing a request under section 18(e).“ Please provide a Section 23 response regarding the decision to not consult me before refusing the requests under Section 18(e).
** Remaining requests
The Minister has not responded to each request for official information separately. At the beginning of the document I stated “Each of the points below is an individual request for official information,” and for each request I presented options for responses to limit the scope of the requests in a way that I felt would fulfil my requests. Please provide a Section 23 response for the decision to respond in such a way that did not allow for an understanding of the results of each decision made against the 10 requests for official information.
The Minister’s response refuses to provide official information. In the document I stated “Any information that is denied should be accompanied with a Section 23 response providing the reasons for the decision to deny the information.” Please provide a section 23 response for the decision to not include a section 23 response for each of the refusals of official information. Please also provide the Section 23 responses for the refusals themselves, as previously requested. Please see the Office of the Ombudsman document “Requests for reasons for a decision or recommendation A guide to section 23 of the OIA and section 22 of the LGOIMA“ for information on how to properly respond to a section 23 request.
In the document “Information not held A guide to sections 18(e) and (g) of the OIA and sections 17(e) and (g) of the LGOIMA“ it is stated that “Agencies must consider consulting the requester before refusing a request under section 18(e).“ Please provide a Section 23 response regarding the decision to not consult me before refusing the requests under Section 18(e).
Yours sincerely,
“Canterbury Victim”
-----Original Message-----
Letter from Hon Grant Robertson, Minister of Finance, attached.
Private Secretary | Office of Hon Grant Robertson
Deputy Prime Minister | Minister of Finance | Minister for Infrastructure | Minister for Sport and Recreation
Member of Parliament for Wellington Central
Private Bag 18 888 |Parliament Buildings |Wellington 6011
[1]www.beehive.govt.nz
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents. If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
Please note information about meetings related to the Ministers’
portfolios will be proactively released (this does not include personal or constituency matters). For each meeting in scope, the summary would list:
date, time (start and finish), brief description, location, who the meeting was with, and the portfolio. If you attend a meeting with the Minister on behalf of an organisation, the name of the organisation will be released. If you are a senior staff member at an organisation, or meet with the Minister in your personal capacity, your name may also be released. The location of the meeting will be released, unless it is a private residence. The proactive release will be consistent with the provisions in the Official Information Act, including privacy considerations. Under the Privacy Act 1993 you have the right to ask for a copy of any personal information we hold about you, and to ask for it to be corrected if you think it is wrong. If you’d like to ask for a copy of your information, or to have it corrected, or are concerned about the release of your information in the meeting disclosure, please contact the sender. You can read more about the proactive release policy at [2]https://www.dia.govt.nz/Proactive-Releas...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #21219 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________
hide quoted sections
From: Canterbury Victim
Dear Hon Grant Robertson,
You have correctly stated that I have a legal right to ask the Ombudsman to investigate. However, I also have a legal right to request a section 23 responses, and you have a legal responsibility to provide them. I have asked for several in the course of these OIA requests and you have not provided any,
Please provide a Section 23 response on your decision to intentionally violate New Zealand law by not providing information you are legally required to under the Official Information Act.
Yours sincerely,
Canterbury Victim
From: Hon Grant Robertson
Kia Ora,
Thank you for contacting Hon Grant Robertson, Minister of
Finance, Minister for Sport and Recreation, Leader of the House, MP for
Wellington Central.
The Minister considers all correspondence important and appreciates you
taking the time to write. As Hon Grant Robertson receives a large amount
of correspondence it is not always possible to personally reply to all
emails. If your correspondence is diary related, requests will be
processed accordingly. If your correspondence requires a response, you
can expect a response in due course. If your correspondence relates to a
another portfolio, your correspondence will be transferred to the
appropriate Minister. If your correspondence expresses an opinion it will
be noted.
Latest information from the Beehive can be found
here: [1]https://www.beehive.govt.nz/
If you are concerned that someone is going to hurt themselves or someone
else, you can call your local mental health crisis team.
A full list of numbers is available
here: [2]www://health.govt.nz/your-health/services-and-support/health-care-services/mental-health-services/crisis-assessment-teams
Thank you for the taking the time to write.
Ngā mihi,
Office of Hon Grant Robertson
Member of Parliament for Wellington Central
Minister of Finance | Minister for Sport and Recreation | Leader of the
House
Freepost: Private Bag 18 888 |Parliament Buildings |Wellington 6011 |Ph:
+64 4 817 8703
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/
2. https://ps-cas-array/ecp/[email address]/Organize/www.health.govt.nz/your-health/services-and-support/health-care-services/mental-health-services/crisis-assessment-teams
From: Hon Grant Robertson
Letter from Hon Grant Robertson, Minister of Finance, attached.
Private Secretary | Office of Hon Grant Robertson
Minister of Finance | Minister for Sport and Recreation | Minister for
Cyclone Recovery
Leader of the House
Member of Parliament for Wellington Central
Private Bag 18 888 |Parliament Buildings |Wellington 6011
[1]www.beehive.govt.nz
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and
intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient,
you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or
make use of its contents. If received in error you are asked to destroy
this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is
appreciated.
Please note information about meetings related to the Ministers’
portfolios will be proactively released (this does not include personal or
constituency matters). For each meeting in scope, the summary would list:
date, time (start and finish), brief description, location, who the
meeting was with, and the portfolio. If you attend a meeting with the
Minister on behalf of an organisation, the name of the organisation will
be released. If you are a senior staff member at an organisation, or meet
with the Minister in your personal capacity, your name may also be
released. The location of the meeting will be released, unless it is a
private residence. The proactive release will be consistent with the
provisions in the Official Information Act, including privacy
considerations. Under the Privacy Act 1993 you have the right to ask for a
copy of any personal information we hold about you, and to ask for it to
be corrected if you think it is wrong. If you’d like to ask for a copy of
your information, or to have it corrected, or are concerned about the
release of your information in the meeting disclosure, please contact the
sender. You can read more about the proactive release policy at
[2]https://www.dia.govt.nz/Proactive-Releas...
-----Original Message-----
From: Canterbury Victim
[[3]mailto:[FOI #21219 email]]
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2022 1:46 AM
To: G Robertson (MIN) <[4][email address]>
Subject: Official Information request - Knowledge of potential criminal
activity by government employees
Dear Grant Robertson,
I am making requests for official information. These requests are being
made on the grounds of public interest in relation to the matters of
transparency; participation; accountability; administration of justice;
health, safety and the environment.
Please note that the requests are not just for documents, but also
information. As such with regards to the Office of the Ombudsman guidance
document “The OIA for Ministers and Agencies” these requests for official
information include “information held in the memory of” the Minister
addressed and only the Minister addressed, not the staff of the office of
the Minister. As such unless there is a document which provides the
information requested, the Minister must be questioned to provide the held
information from their memory. No sections of this request can be denied
based on Section 18(e) unless they are also denied on Section 18(g).
Each of the points below is an individual request for official
information. If any of the responses need to be extended that should not
impact delivery of responses for those that do not require an extension.
Any decision to extend a deadline should be accompanied with a Section 22
response.
Any information that is denied should be accompanied with a Section 22
response providing the reasons for the decision to deny the information.
These should include the dates and times that the Minister was questioned
about their memory of the official information.
As per the Office of the Ombudsman guidance a clarification requested will
only reset the deadline for the individual requests where a clarification
is provided, the remainder of the requests for official information in
this communication will have the original deadline remain.
Further in relation to the Office of the Ombudsman guidance “The agency’s
primary legal obligation is to notify the requester of the decision on the
request ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’. The reference to 20 working
days is not the de facto goal but the absolute maximum (unless it is
extended appropriately).” If the notification does happen on the last day
of the 20 working day deadline please provide a Section 22 response as to
why the decision was made that it was not ‘reasonably practicable’ to
provide the decision sooner.
I am not providing a Privacy Waiver, and so any response to these requests
for official information should have my personal information redacted.
These requests will make reference to official information held within the
document located at [5]https://bit.ly/3K29MME Despite their being other
Ministers that may have official information with regards to the content
of that document, this request for official information is about official
information held by the Minister addressed and therefore should not be
transferred and instead be denied if the information is not held by the
addressed Minister.
1. When did the Minister first become aware of the document that exists at
[6]https://bit.ly/3K29MME? If there does not exist a document with this
information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will
fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware
of the document before receiving this request for official information,
then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil
the request.
2. The linked document includes official information where government
employees at Southern Response have been altering documents and
instructing others to alter documents they did not author in order to
create a false representation of facts and timelines where those documents
were then used to cause loss by deception. When did the Minister first
become aware of these or similar events? If there does not exist a
document with this information then an approximate date from the
Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no
recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this
request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to
recall their memory will fulfil the request.
3. The linked document includes official information where Southern
Response employees conspired with a Consent Team Leader at Christchurch
City Council to get agreement that a building consent would be granted
despite the repair methodology did not match the submitted technical
documents, was in violation of the MBIE repair guidance, and ultimately
would result in a house repair that they knew had not been approved as
meeting the Building Code. When did the Minister first become aware of
these or similar events? This question is not limited to the example
given in the linked document and can relate to any instance of this
deceptive behaviour. If there does not exist a document with this
information then an approximate date from the Minister’s memory will
fulfil the request. If the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware
of such events before receiving this request for official information,
then the date the Minister was asked to recall their memory will fulfil
the request.
4. The linked document includes information regarding Southern Response
committing a significant breach of the Fair Insurance Code (the accepted
New Zealand Code of Ethics for the Insurance Industry) so significantly
that the behaviour of the involved government employees would bring the
entirety of the New Zealand Insurance Industry into disrepute. When did
the Minister first become aware that government employees were responsible
for the first ever unresolved significant breach of the Fair Insurance
Code being referred to the Insurance Council of New Zealand? If there does
not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from
the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no
recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this
request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to
recall their memory will fulfil the request.
5. The linked document includes information regarding the Dispute
Resolution Scheme (regulated by the Financial Service Providers
(Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008) specifically not
addressing matters of dishonesty in their assessment of behaviour of the
government staff despite finding that Southern Response significantly
breached the Fair Insurance Code. When did the Minister first become
aware that the Dispute Resolution Scheme declined to consider dishonesty,
when specifically asked to address matters of dishonesty in the details of
the complaint, when assessing violations of the insurance industry Code of
Ethics? This question is not limited to the example given in the linked
document and can relate to any instance of this behaviour. If there does
not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from
the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no
recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this
request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to
recall their memory will fulfil the request.
6. The linked document includes official information regarding the
Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) communicating with the CEO of
Southern Response stating that the complaint of the behaviour of Southern
Response had been heard at their last meeting despite us being told that
it would not be heard at that meeting; and that had ICNZ not forced us to
go through the Dispute Resolution Scheme that ICNZ would have found
Southern Response in violation of the Code at that meeting, but instead
ICNZ delayed the complaint of two cancer patients to allow Southern
Response to be better prepared should the DIspute Resolution Scheme refer
the complaint back to ICNZ. Southern Response then went on to utilise the
law firm where a former partner, and consultant of that law firm is a
sitting member of the ICNZ committee that assessed Southern Response’s
behaviour. When did the Minister first become aware of these events? If
there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate
date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister
has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this
request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to
recall their memory will fulfil the request.
7. The linked document includes information regarding the Dispute
Resolution Scheme finding that the Significant Breach of the Fair
Insurance Code was unresolved despite the apology and ex gratia payment,
but the Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) stating that the complaint
was resolved by the apology and ex gratia payment. This is despite direct
communication between Southern Response and ICNZ where Anthony Honeybone
states that the apology was not sincere and instead was simply easier than
telling me how I was wrong about Southern Response’s behaviour. The
linked document also addresses all parts of the Southern Response apology
with official information to show that it was not sincere. When did the
Minister first become aware of these events? If there does not exist a
document with this information then an approximate date from the
Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no
recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this
request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to
recall their memory will fulfil the request.
8. The linked document includes information regarding government employees
setting a one week deadline for me after I told them I was in hospital and
needed to reduce stress. The deadline required me to provide engineering
information because they would not accept their own engineering advice
that their desired repair methodology was inappropriate. These actions
have been described by the New Zealand Police as “seems inappropriate and
appears to be taking advantage of your medical circumstances”. When did
the Minister first become aware of these events? If there does not exist
a document with this information then an approximate date from the
Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If the Minister has no
recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this
request for official information, then the date the Minister was asked to
recall their memory will fulfil the request.
9. Please provide the dates for each of these connected events if they
happened with the Minister all for a single official information requestor
within the last 6 months:
a. The Minister denied the existence of official information based on
section 18(e) b. The requestor provided evidence that documents do exist
with the requested information c. The Minister then stated that it was
already known the documents existed, but that there was a desire to not
provide the documents because they contain discussions that are too “full
and frank” to be made public d. The Minister then denied the request again
based instead on 9(2)(ba)
If there does not exist a document with this information then an
approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If
the Minister has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before
receiving this request for official information, then the please deny this
request based on Section 18(e) and 18(g).
10. If request 9 is not denied then please provide the date at which the
Minister was first informed that there was belief that those engaged with
the Minister in the “full and frank” conversations may be committing
crimes. If there does not exist a document with this information then an
approximate date from the Minister’s memory will fulfil the request. If
the Minister has no recollection of becoming informed of criminal
behaviour then please deny this request based on Section 18(e) and 18(g).
As I have a significant amount of additional information to make public in
relation to these matters and an unknown number of request and response
cycles in order to allow the matters of public interest to be adequately
addressed, I would appreciate it if these requests were addressed as a
matter of urgency.
Yours faithfully,
“Canterbury Victim”
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[7][FOI #21219 email]
Is [8][Grant Robertson request email] the wrong address for Official
Information requests to Grant Robertson? If so, please contact us using
this form:
[9]https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[10]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
2. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. mailto:[FOI #21219 email]
4. mailto:[email address]
5. https://bit.ly/3K29MME
6. https://bit.ly/3K29MME
7. mailto:[FOI #21219 email]
8. mailto:[Grant Robertson request email]
9. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
10. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
hide quoted sections
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Working families & small/med business. Reports analysing inflationary drivers, forecasts & ongoing analyses
To Grant Robertson by J Bruning
Pfizer
To Grant Robertson by S Hill
