10 November 2020
S. Rowe
By email: [FYI request #13956 email]
Dear Requestor,
Request for information
We refer to your Official Information Act 1982 (
OIA) email request received on 12 October
2020 requesting the following information:
1) For each of the Southern Response directors, Alister James, Bevan Killick, Anne
Urlwin, and the minister for Southern Response Grant Robertson, please provide the
following information.
a) When were each first informed there was an ethics complaint?
b) What updates were each given about the ethics complaint?
c) Which of these individuals recommended any actions regarding the
complaint, the policyholders, or the way the claim was being handled, and
what are the details of those recommendations?
2) Was denying the policyholders the ability to make complaints something that was
recommended by the law firm that Southern Response paid to advise on their
submission to the IFSO Scheme?
3) Did Southern Response consider that remaining a member of ICNZ would be
appropriate given that it may again handle claims directly instead of through EQC?
4) When did Southern Response make the decision to stop being a member of
ICNZ?
5) When did Southern Response inform ICNZ that it would stop being a member?
6) Were the EQC staff given a mandate to forward questions to Southern Response?
7) Was that mandate related specifically to this claim or additional claims?
8) What was the reasoning for Southern Response considering that a conversation it
had with EQC about the “the role of EQC Settlement Specialist“ is considered legal
privilege and has been redacted in Privacy Act requests?
9) What formal arrangement does Southern Response have with EQC to act as its
legal advisor?
10) Are Alister George James, Bevan Edward Killick, Anne June Urlwin, and Grant
Murray Robertson aware that Southern Response is providing legal counsel to EQC
on a claim that Southern Response has been found to have committed significant
ethical violations?
11) Has Southern Response requested that all claims be reallocated because there
is a lack of continuity and familiarity with EQC handling the claims?
12) Did EQC express interest to Southern Response to reallocate this claim back to
Southern Response?
13) As the Ombudsman Act 1975 does not apply to Southern Response, but does to
the Earthquake Commission, did Southern Response reallocate the claim to prevent
the policyholders from seeking intervention from the New Zealand Ombudsman?
(Noting that this request was subsequently withdrawn on 28 October 2020)
14) Did Southern Response consider that instead of needing “extensive experience
as an insurance law practitioner” that it could instead just stop acting in a way that
breached the code of ethics it agreed to uphold?
15) Has Southern Response been working with the IFSO Scheme’s Ombudsman to
prevent the complaint filed before Southern Response left ICNZ from making its way
to ICNZ?
Response to your request
We have responded informally to your request on four occasions (14 October, 20 October,
29 October and 4 November) to request that you contact us directly to discuss whether you
meet the eligibility requirements in section 12 of the Official Information Act and the
supporting evidence you may be able to provide.
As you have not contacted us to provide proof of your eligibility to request information we are
not able to accept this as a valid OIA request.
Your rights
Please feel free to contact us if you have any concerns about this response. You also have
the right to contact the Ombudsman about this response. To do so, you can visit their
website -
http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
Yours sincerely
Casey Hurren
General Manager
