Dear Taumata Arowai,

My request pertains to the document titled "Summary of submissions on Drinking Water Standards" and concerns the recent changes to the Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand as outlined in the Water Services (Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand) Regulations 2022.

I respectfully request that Taumata Arowai provide the names of individuals, organizations, or groups along with their corresponding responses to each of the 26 survey questions presented in the aforementioned document. If there are privacy concerns regarding individual respondents, I am willing to accept the data in a form that protects their identities, such as coded identifiers or the provision of aggregate data.

I also seek confirmation of the percentage increases in the Maximum Acceptable Values (MAVs) for various substances as indicated in the transition from the Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2018) to the Water Services (Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand) Regulations 2022. Specifically, the substances and their respective alleged percentage increases are as follows:

Atrazine: 4900% increase

MCPA: 39,900% increase

Metalaxyl: 200% increase

Trichloroethene: 50% increase

Radon (total alpha activity): 400% increase

Radon (total beta activity): 100% increase

Aluminium: 900% increase

Please provide the relevant data or documentation that confirms or corrects these figures.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your prompt response.

Dear Taumata Arowai,

Thank you for your response and the provided document concerning the "Summary of submissions on Drinking Water Standards." I appreciate your effort in maintaining the privacy of individual respondents by using coded identifiers. However, I would like to clarify and emphasize a specific aspect of my original request that seems to have been overlooked.

My initial request sought detailed information on how each organization and group responded to the 26 survey questions, specifically whether they voted 'YES,' 'NO,' or indicated 'DON'T KNOW' for each question. While I understand and respect the privacy measures taken for individual respondents, this concern does not extend to organizations and groups. Since their names have already been disclosed in the key comments from submitters, I believe it is feasible to provide their specific responses to each survey question without any privacy infringement.

Therefore, I kindly request that you provide the detailed voting information (YES, NO, or DON'T KNOW) for each organization and group for all 26 survey questions. This information is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the collective stance and perspectives of these entities on the changes to the Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand.

I believe this request aligns with the principles of transparency and public interest, and I trust that Taumata Arowai will assist in providing this specific aspect of the survey data.

Thank you again for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt and detailed response.

Sincerely,
Mr Davies

Dear Taumata Arowai,

I am writing to address the recent correspondence regarding my information request under the Official Information Act 1982, specifically referenced as OIA Ref: CAS-01817-M4S9J1.

I appreciate your acknowledgment of my follow-up request. However, I must express my concern regarding the handling of this matter. The latest response indicates that my follow-up request is being treated as a separate query. This approach seems to misunderstand the nature of my follow-up, which was intended to clarify and reiterate the specific information initially requested but was not adequately addressed in your initial response.

The essence of my original request, clearly outlined in my initial communication, was to obtain detailed voting information (YES, NO, or DON'T KNOW) from each organization and group for all 26 survey questions related to the "Summary of submissions on Drinking Water Standards." The information provided in your response, while partially addressing my request, crucially omitted these specific details.

Given the nature of my follow-up as a request for information that was initially sought but not provided, treating it as a separate request appears to be a procedural misstep. As a result, there is now an undue delay in providing the information. As of today, it has been 34 days since my original request, which exceeds the legal timeframe for responses under the Official Information Act.

Therefore, I respectfully urge Taumata Arowai to expedite the processing of my follow-up query as part of the original request (OIA Ref: CAS-01817-M4S9J1), rather than as a separate entity. This information is vital for a thorough and transparent understanding of the changes to the Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand, and its timely release is in the public interest.

I trust that Taumata Arowai will acknowledge the urgency and significance of this request and will provide the requested information without further delay.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to a prompt and complete response.

Sincerely,
Mr Davies