Dear Accident Compensation Corporation,

I am writing to follow up under urgency an Official Information Request emailed to ACC's Head of Privacy and Government Services Mr Paul Holmes on 12 March 2016.

The accompanying letter to my email also dated 12 March 2016, concerns my Request for Official Information under section 23 of the Act in response to Mr Holmes' letter dated 04 March 2016 (I note that my letter dated 12/3/16 incorrectly references ACC's correspondence dated 04 March 2015 which I correct now), where Mr Holmes confirmed that my OIA request for information as requested under "Matter 5" in my letter to Mr Holmes dated 13 January 2016, for the release of written statements from both the Henderson BMA Dr Peter Thakurdas, and the Henderson BAP Janet Milne in relation to specific conversations that Dr Thakuradus and Ms Milne engaged in in relation to the matters outlined in my letter dated 13 January 2016, satisfies ACC's obligations to release this information under section 23 of the Official Information Act 1982 provided the requestors request is within a reasonable timeframe.

Mr Paul Holmes went on to state;

Given the the recommendation you are referring to was made on 11 August 2014 - some 16 Months ago - ACC does not consider that your request falls into the reasonable timeframe outlined in section 23 of the Official Information Act 1982.

To date I have not received a response to my OIA letter of reply to Mr Holmes dated 12 March 2016 to which I am following up today under urgency, which welcomed Mr Holmes' /ACC's reconsideration of providing to me the requested information based on among other facts provided in my letter of 12/03/16 , the fact my written approaches to ACC for this information are clearly documented in my previous and repeated correspondence to ACC for the request of the information that I am seeking from ACC's Dr Thakurdas and Janet Milne, on no less that the following previous four occasions;

24 December 2014,

First request for this information directed to Henderson Branch Manager Debbie Graham

25 February 2015,

Second and slightly amended request for this information directed to Henderson Branch Manager Debbie Graham.

9 March 2015,

Requested was part of my complaint concerning the non release of information to me including, but not limited to my requests for Dr Thakuradus and Janet Milnes written statements as defined within the referred correspondence.

9 December 2015

follow up request again for the information.

and that the only reason that I am still requesting this information 16 months latter is because ACC have breached their obligations to me under the OIA Act 1982, through not having already provided this information to me in response to any one, or number of my previous requests noted above to ACC.

I also pointed out to Mr Holmes;

"The legal concept of equity applies in this situation in that ACC's original inappropriate responses to not arrange the written statements from Dr Thakurdas, and Janet Milne, should not place ACC in a subsequent position of power over me, and or the limiting of my rights to have this information provided. "

My letter of 12 March 2016, drew Mr Holmes that the significance of this information is of substantive relevance and importance to me to help me understand Dr Peter Thakaurdas and Janet Milne's rational behind the concerns discussed and decisions that followed. Mr Holmes is also aware that I am seeking this information for the purposes of once received preparing review submissions in matters relating to the review of several of ACC's decisions.

My request for Mr Holmes reconsideration and release of the information I requested, and provided the substantive and valid reasons why the information should be released to me under section 23 of the Official Information Act 1982, was made now 28 working days ago, without a response being provided to me by Mr Paul Holmes nor ACC.

I am therefore requesting that ACC remedy the current non provision of this information and satisfy ACC's obligations to me under section 23 of the Official Information Act 1982 and provide the information as requested, and further that urgency is applied to my request in this instance and the information is released to me to me with in the next 5 working days.

Under s16(2) of the Official Information Act, my preferred way of receiving a response is by email to the address from which ACC received the original request, not by post.

I thank you for your time and assistance and look forward to receiving the official information that I have requested in full, under urgency and received on or before the end of business close on 29 April 2016.

Yours faithfully,

David Lawson

Dear Government Services,

I note your advice of a time extension, however I draw to your attention that the letter of acknowledgement has taken only selected parts of my commentary with respect to my OIA request through in to your letter dated 23 May 2016.

I respectfully request that you acknowledge my whole commentary in an amended acceptance letter since the shortening in anyway of my commentary alters the nature of the context, and therefore the scope of information that I am requesting and or addressing.

I would appreciate you returning under urgency with in the next 5 working days so that this matter can be corrected by ACC so that the information that I am seeking is not limited in any way by your reinterpretaion and shortening of the full commentary associated with my original OIA request.

Regards,
David Lawson

Dear Government Services, 24 May 2016

I refer to your comments dated 24 May 2016 in the context of my request dated 23 May 2016, and FYI request dated 22 April 2016, which was returned to ACC government services in response to
Government Services Extension advice notified 23 May 2016.

My request of 23 May 2016 reads;

"Dear Government Services,

I note your advice of a time extension, however I draw to your attention that the letter of acknowledgement has taken onlyselected parts of my commentary with respect to my OIA request
through in to your letter dated 23 May 2016.

I respectfully request that you acknowledge my whole commentary in an amended acceptance letter since the shortening in anyway of my commentary alters the nature of the context, and therefore the
scope of information that I am requesting and or addressing.

I would appreciate you returning under urgency with in the next 5 working days so that this matter can be corrected by ACC so that the information that I am seeking is not limited in any way by your
re-interpretaion and shortening of the full commentary associated with my original OIA request.

Regards,
David Lawson" (- Quoted from David Lawson's FYI OIA request dated
23 May 2016)

ACC Government Services' response dated 23 May 2015, referenced my FYI OIA request from 22 April 2016, and provided notification of Time Extension through to 3 June 2016.

My legitimate and valid concerns that I have raised with ACC Government Services on 23 May 2016, and that has remained unaddressed in your correspondence received today relate to that fact that ACC Government Services in providing their Time Extension Notification have repackaged my FYI request dated 22 April 2016, by not acknowledging by omission the inclusion of my full written comment from my FYI OIA request of 22/ April 2014 in the time extension letter dated 23 May 2016, and in addition dubiously altering the text of my FYI request of 22 April 2016 in their letter dated 23 May 2016, when replicated in ACC Government Services said letter of 23 May 2016.

ACC Government Services has omitted to include the following text/commentary from my FYI request dated 22 April 2016 in their partial acknowledgement of my full FYI request dated 22 April 2016;

"Dear Accident Compensation Corporation,

I am writing to follow up under urgency an Official Information Request emailed to ACC's Head of Privacy and Government Services Mr Paul Holmes on 12 March 2016.

The accompanying letter to my email also dated 12 March 2016, concerns my Request for Official Information under section 23 of the Act in response to Mr Holmes' letter dated 04 March 2016 (I
note that my letter dated 12/3/16 incorrectly references ACC's correspondence dated 04 March 2015 which I correct now), where Mr Holmes confirmed that my OIA request for information as requested
under "Matter 5" in my letter to Mr Holmes dated 13 January 2016, for the release of written statements from both the Henderson BMA Dr Peter Thakurdas, and the Henderson BAP Janet Milne in relation to specific conversations that Dr Thakurdus and Ms Milne engaged in in relation to the matters outlined in my letter dated 13 January 2016, satisfies ACC's obligations to release this
information under section 23 of the Official Information Act 1982 provided the requestors request is within a reasonable time frame.

Mr Paul Holmes went on to state;

Given the the recommendation you are referring to was made on 11 August 2014 - some 16 Months ago - ACC does not consider that your request falls into the reasonable timeframe outlined in section 23
of the Official Information Act 1982.

To date I have not received a response to my OIA letter of reply to Mr Holmes dated 12 March 2016 to which I am following up today under urgency, which welcomed Mr Holmes' /ACC's reconsideration of
providing to me the requested information based on among other facts provided in my letter of 12/03/16 , the fact my written approaches to ACC for this information are clearly documented in my
previous and repeated correspondence to ACC for the request of the information that I am seeking from ACC's Dr Thakurdas and Janet Milne, on no less that the following previous four occasions;

24 December 2014,

First request for this information directed to Henderson Branch Manager Debbie Graham

25 February 2015,

Second and slightly amended request for this information directed to Henderson Branch Manager Debbie Graham.

9 March 2015,"
(- Quoted from David Lawson's FYI OIA request dated 22 April 2016)

In addition to the omission of the above, ACC Government Services has intentionally altered my original commentary/request which follows the above omitted text and which accurately reads as I
quote....;

"Requested was part of my complaint concerning the non release of information to me including, but not limited to my requests for Dr Thakuradus and Janet Milnes written statements as defined within
the referred correspondence.

9 December 2015

follow up request again for the information.

and that the only reason that I am still requesting this information 16 months latter is because ACC have breached their obligations to me under the OIA Act 1982, through not having already provided this information to me in response to any one, or number of my previous requests noted above to ACC."
(- Quoted from David Lawson's FYI OIA request dated 22 April 2016)

...to then read in ACC's Time Extension Letter dated 23 May 2016 incorrectly, altered and out of context as follows;

"Requested was part of my complaint concerning the non release of information to me including, but not limited to my requests for Dr Thakuradus and Janet Milnes written statements as defined within
the referred correspondence. The only reason that I am still requesting this information 16 months latter is because ACC have breached their obligations to me under the OIA Act 1982, through
not having already provided this information to me in response to any one, or number of my previous requests noted above to ACC."
( - Quoted from ACC Government Services letter dated 23 May 2016)

ACC Government Services have taken it upon themselves to alter the narrative and context of this passage in my FYI request dated 22 April 2016 by removing the following text and therefore it's
associated context;

"9 December 2015

follow up request again for the information.

and that...."

Just as dubious is the fact that ACC Government Services have altered my original FYI request by then going on to forming a new sentence in their letter dated 23 May 2016 when they have written
in italic's which generally stand for quoted text;

"....the referred correspondence. The only reason that I am...." (-
Quoted from ACC Government Services letter dated 23 May 2016)

This is an interference with my privacy because when read in full and in context with my FYI request/commentary dated 22 April 2016, which ACC Government Services have omitted to include in their letter dated 23 May 2016 the sentence continuing after " follow up request again for the information." which accurately reads;

"and that the only reason that I am still requesting this information 16 months latter is because ACC have breached their obligations to me under the OIA Act 1982, through not having
already provided this information to me in response to any one, or number of my previous requests noted above to ACC."
(- Quoted from David Lawson's FYI OIA request dated 22 April 2016)

and is actually the continuation of the following sentence;

"To date I have not received a response to my OIA letter of reply to Mr Holmes dated 12 March 2016 to which I am following up today under urgency, which welcomed Mr Holmes' /ACC's reconsideration of
providing to me the requested information based on among other facts provided in my letter of 12/03/16 , the fact my written approaches to ACC for this information are clearly documented in my
previous and repeated correspondence to ACC for the request of the information that I am seeking from ACC's Dr Thakurdas and Janet Milne, on no less that the following previous four occasions;"
(- Quoted from David Lawson's FYI OIA request dated 22 April 2016)

and as can be seen from above, and my FYI request dated 22 April 2016, enclosed the following text/context regarding my previous requests for the OIA information that ACC has yet to satisfy/remedy
under the Act, for which I am seeking;

"24 December 2014,

First request for this information directed to Henderson Branch Manager Debbie Graham

25 February 2015,

Second and slightly amended request for this information directed to Henderson Branch Manager Debbie Graham.

9 March 2015,

Requested was part of my complaint concerning the non release of information to me including, but not limited to my requests for Dr Thakurdus and Janet Milnes written statements as defined withinthe
referred correspondence.

9 December 2015

follow up request again for the information."
(- Quoted from David Lawson's FYI OIA request dated 22 April 2016)

ACC's Government Services intentional omissions and alterations to my text and commentary of my FYI follow up request dated 22 April 2016 in their letter dated 23 May 2016 has the effect of removing
the strict full context of my FYI written commentary/request of 22 April 2016, which also intentionally limits the scope and context of ACC's reported response due 3 June 2016, which is bound in the
following statement in ACC Government Services letter dated 23 May 2016 states (and I draw your attention to the sentence Our response in due course will be provided on the following);

"Thank You for your request, seeking information on the following matter from 12 April 2016. Our response in due course will be provided on the following;

Requested was part of my complaint concerning the non release of information to me including, but not limited to my requests for DrThakuradus and Janet Milnes written statements as defined with in the referred correspondence. The only reason that I am still requesting thisinformation 16 months latter is because ACC have breached theirobligations to me under the OIA Act 1982, through not having already provided this information to me in response to any one, or number of my previous requests noted above to ACC.

I also pointed out to Mr Holmes; "The legal concept of equity applies in this situation in that ACC's original inappropriate responses to not arrange the written statements from Dr Thakurdas, and Janet Milne, should not place ACC in a subsequent position of power over me, and or the limiting of my rights to have this information provided. "

My letter of 12 March 2016, drew Mr Holmes that the significance of this information is of substantive relevance and importance to me to help me understand Dr Peter Thakaurdas and Janet Milne's
rational behind the concerns discussed and decisions that followed. Mr Holmes is also aware that I am seeking this information for the purposes of once received preparing review submissions in matters
relating to the review of several of ACC's decisions.

My request for Mr Holmes reconsideration and release of the information I requested, and provided the substantive and valid reasons why the information should be released to me under section
23 of the Official Information Act 1982, was made now 28 working days ago, without a response being provided to me by Mr Paul Holmes nor ACC.

I am therefore requesting that ACC remedy the current non provision of this information and satisfy ACC's obligations to me under section 23 of the Official Information Act 1982 and provide the
information as requested, and further that urgency is applied to my request in this instance and the information is released to me to me with in the next 5 working days.
(- Quoted from ACC Government Services letter dated 23 May 2016)

For this reason I return to ACC Government Services and respectfully request that you correct ACC's omissions and misleading alterations to my original full FYI OIA request dated 22 April 2016 which has substantively altered the full context of my FYI OIA request in a further delay by ACC in an attempt not to release the information that I have requested dating back to 24 December 2014 and 25 February 2015. I therefore respectfully request that ACC Government Services provide me with an amended
time extension letter that reflects that ACC will respond in full to the FYI OIA request dated 22 April 2016 and quoting my full unedited FYI OIA request dated 22 April 2016 within the body of ACC's letter as follows;

From: David Lawson

April 22, 2016

Dear Accident Compensation Corporation,

I am writing to follow up under urgency an Official Information Request emailed to ACC's Head of Privacy and Government Services Mr Paul Holmes on 12 March 2016.

The accompanying letter to my email also dated 12 March 2016, concerns my Request for Official Information under section 23 of the Act in response to Mr Holmes' letter dated 04 March 2016 (I
note that my letter dated 12/3/16 incorrectly references ACC's correspondence dated 04 March 2015 which I correct now), where Mr Holmes confirmed that my OIA request for information as requested
under "Matter 5" in my letter to Mr Holmes dated 13 January 2016, for the release of written statements from both the Henderson BMA Dr Peter Thakurdas, and the Henderson BAP Janet Milne in relation to specific conversations that Dr Thakuradus and Ms Milne engaged in in relation to the matters outlined in my letter dated 13 January 2016, satisfies ACC's obligations to release this
information under section 23 of the Official Information Act 1982 provided the requestors request is within a reasonable timeframe.

Mr Paul Holmes went on to state;

Given the the recommendation you are referring to was made on 11 August 2014 - some 16 Months ago - ACC does not consider that your request falls into the reasonable timeframe outlined in section 23
of the Official Information Act 1982.

To date I have not received a response to my OIA letter of reply to Mr Holmes dated 12 March 2016 to which I am following up today under urgency, which welcomed Mr Holmes' /ACC's reconsideration of
providing to me the requested information based on among other facts provided in my letter of 12/03/16 , the fact my written approaches to ACC for this information are clearly documented in my
previous and repeated correspondence to ACC for the request of the information that I am seeking from ACC's Dr Thakurdas and Janet Milne, on no less that the following previous four occasions;

24 December 2014,

First request for this information directed to Henderson Branch Manager Debbie Graham

25 February 2015,

Second and slightly amended request for this information directed to Henderson Branch Manager Debbie Graham.

9 March 2015,

Requested was part of my complaint concerning the non release of information to me including, but not limited to my requests for Dr Thakuradus and Janet Milnes written statements as defined within
the referred correspondence.

9 December 2015

follow up request again for the information.

and that the only reason that I am still requesting this information 16 months latter is because ACC have breached their obligations to me under the OIA Act 1982, through not having already provided this information to me in response to any one, or number of my previous requests noted above to ACC.

I also pointed out to Mr Holmes;

"The legal concept of equity applies in this situation in that ACC's original inappropriate responses to not arrange the written statements from Dr Thakurdas, and Janet Milne, should not place ACC
in a subsequent position of power over me, and or the limiting of my rights to have this information provided. "

My letter of 12 March 2016, drew Mr Holmes that the significance of this information is of substantive relevance and importance to me to help me understand Dr Peter Thakaurdas and Janet Milne's
rational behind the concerns discussed and decisions that followed. Mr Holmes is also aware that I am seeking this information for the purposes of once received preparing review submissions in matters
relating to the review of several of ACC's decisions.

My request for Mr Holmes reconsideration and release of the information I requested, and provided the substantive and valid reasons why the information should be released to me under section
23 of the Official Information Act 1982, was made now 28 working days ago, without a response being provided to me by Mr Paul Holmes nor ACC.

I am therefore requesting that ACC remedy the current non provision of this information and satisfy ACC's obligations to me under section 23 of the Official Information Act 1982 and provide the
information as requested, and further that urgency is applied to my request in this instance and the information is released to me to me with in the next 5 working days.

Under s16(2) of the Official Information Act, my preferred way of receiving a response is by email to the address from which ACC received the original request, not by post.

I thank you for your time and assistance and look forward to receiving the official information that I have requested in full, under urgency and received on or before the end of business close on 29 April 2016.

Yours faithfully,

David Lawson

(- Quoted from David Lawson's FYI OIA request dated 22 April 2016)

This will in part remediate ACC's breaches in my Privacy, Health and Official Information Rights by making good ACC's intentional omissions and alterations which are misleading and take my FYI OIA
request out of context, so as to limit ACC's response under the OIA Act.

In terms of ACC's Government Services comments on 24 May 2016 which reads;

"Dear Mr Lawson

As you have been informed several times previously the provision of an acknowledgement is a courtesy, not a requirement. ACC will not be providing a second acknowledgement letter. Your request under the Act will be responded to in full in due course.

Yours sincerely

Government Services"

I remind ACC Government Services that my approach through FYI for this information was brought about by Mr Paul Holmes (ACC's Head of Privacy and ACC's Government Services) non response to my written request dated 12 March 2016, for Mr Paul Holmes reconsideration of withholding the outstanding OIA information that I had followed up and in my letter to Mr Holmes dated 13 January 2016, in which I provided my valid reasons for the supply of this information.

The trigger for the outstanding unanswered request to ACC's Head of Privacy and ACC's Head of Government Services, Mr Paul Holmes for the outstanding OIA information is therefore not the 22 April 2016, but the 14 March 2016, being the first working day that my letter dated 12 March 2016 forwarded by email to Mr Paul Holme's email address [email address], and copied into ACC's Jane Harding's email address, was receipted by ACC for the purposes of setting the mandatory time frames that ACC's obligations are defined under OIA legislation.

This means that ACC's/Mr Holmes response to my letter dated 12 May 2016 was due under the OIA unless an extension was requested, or a valid reason under the OIA Act 1982 was provided, within 20 working days, being by the end of business close on Tuesday 12 April 2016, which did not transpire, placing ACC in breach of their mandatory rights under the OIA 1982.

I note that Mr Paul Holmes ended up corresponding on 2 May 2016, some 33 working days later, but has not advised any valid reasons why ACC has not supplied the information requested on 24 December 2014, 25 February 2015, in 9 March 2015, 9 December 2015, 13 January 2016, or 12 March 2016, which is partially the reason for this followup seeking ACC's valid reasons that this information has not been made available to me to date some 17 months after my first request.

Therefore at the time that I submitted the FYI request dated 22 April 2016, I had correctly drawn to ACC's government services attention that my request dated 12 March 2016, reciepted for OIA
requested purposes by ACC from 14 March 2016 for ACC's/Mr Paul Holmes reconsideration of ACC's withholding of the information I have been seeking for over 17 Months, was 8 working days outside of
the mandatory timeframes in legislation under the OIA Act. ACC, nor Mr Holmes had responded to my request for the official information, nor had they provided a letter of time extension, or the valid
reasons for the withholding of the information that I have requested.

I await your amended time extension letter under urgency within the next 5 working days, which replaces and redacts in full your time extension letter dated 23 May 2016. Please ensure that the amended time extension letter, includes my OIA request dated 22 April 2016 quoted in full within your new and amended time extension letter, so as to mitigate the omissions and alterations of the text and
context by ACC Government Services without my prior knowledge or consent of my OIA request dated 22 April 2016, which if left unaddressed, and not corrected on ACC's part materially and
substantively prejudices and undermines the integrity of my OIA request dated 22 April 2016.

The outstanding official information as requested in good faith will also be welcomed under urgency within the next 5 working days.

Yours sincerely,

David Lawson