Knowledge of potential criminal activity by government employees
Canterbury Victim made this Official Information request to Kiri Allan
Response to this request is long overdue. By law Kiri Allan should have responded by now (details and exceptions). The requester can complain to the Ombudsman.
From: Canterbury Victim
Dear Kiri Allan,
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 23 response.
Any information that is denied should be accompanied with a Section 23 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 23 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: K Allan (MIN)
Kiri Allan
Tçnâ koe
Thank you for contacting the Ministerial office of Hon Kiri Allan,
Minister of Justice, Associate Minister of Finance, Associate Minister for
Arts, Culture and Heritage and Associate Minister for the Environment.
While the Minister considers all correspondence to be very
important, Minister Allan receives a significant volume of correspondence
and it is not always possible to provide a personal response to every
email received:
* If your message is for Minister Allan’s advice, or if you have copied
your email to another Minister and/or Member of Parliament with more
appropriate portfolio responsibilities, then this will be noted,
* If you have invited Minister Allan to an event then a member of staff
may contact you for more information if the Minister’s attendance
might be possible,
* If you have made a request for official information then this will be
manged in accordance with the provisions of the Official Information
Act 1982, which may include transfer to a more relevant Minister or
agency,
* If you are a journalist then your request will be referred to the
Minister’s press secretary,
* If your correspondence is to the Minister as the Member of Parliament
for the East Coast, this will be referred to her electorate office.
To find out more about Minister Allan, please visit the Beehive Website.
Ngâ mihi nui,
The Office of Hon Kiritapu Allan
MP for East Coast
Minister of Justice
Associate Minister of Finance
Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage
Associate Minister for the Environment
4.5L |The Beehive | Wellington | Ph: +64 4 817 8719 | Postal Freepost
Parliament, Private Bag 18 041, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160, New
Zealand
[1]www.beehive.govt.nz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. file://psvmfs06/MyDocs$/shawm/Desktop/www.beehive.govt.nz
From: K Allan (MIN)
Kiri Allan
Official Information Act Request
I refer to your official information request dated 28 November.
The information to which your request relates is not held by us but is
believed to be held by the Minister responsible for the Earthquake
Commission, Hon Dr. David Clark. We understand that this request has
already been sent to the Minister responsible. You will hear further from
the office of Hon Dr David Clark concerning your request.
Ngā mihi nui,
Office of Hon Kiritapu Allan MP
Minister of Justice | Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage |
Associate Minister for the Environment | Associate Minister of Finance
4.5L Executive Wing, Parliament Buildings | Wellington 6160 | New Zealand
Ext: 8857 | [1]www.beehive.govt.nz
-----Original Message-----
From: Canterbury Victim
[[2]mailto:[FOI #21263 email]]
Sent: Monday, 28 November 2022 7:37 AM
To: K Allan (MIN) <[3][Kiri Allan request email]>
Subject: Official Information request - Knowledge of potential criminal
activity by government employees
Dear Kiri Allan,
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 23
response.
Any information that is denied should be accompanied with a Section 23
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 23 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 [4]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
[5]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:
[6][FOI #21263 email]
Is [7][Kiri Allan request email] the wrong address for Official Information
requests to Kiri Allan? If so, please contact us using this form:
[8]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:
[9]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. http://www.beehive.govt.nz/
2. mailto:[FOI #21263 email]
3. mailto:[Kiri Allan request email]
4. https://bit.ly/3K29MME
5. https://bit.ly/3K29MME
6. mailto:[FOI #21263 email]
7. mailto:[Kiri Allan request email]
8. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
9. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
hide quoted sections
From: Canterbury Victim
Dear K Allan (MIN),
Please see my original document where I state: "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."
As such Hon Kiritapu Allan must either provide the requested information or deny the request based on one or more of the reasons allowed by the Official Information Act.
Please confirm that Hon Kiritapu Allan will provide a decision within the timeframe required by the Official Information Act.
Yours sincerely,
"Canterbury Victim"
From: K Allan (MIN)
Kiri Allan
Kia ora,
Please see attached a letter from Ben McLachlan, Senior Ministerial Advisor to Hon Kiri Allan.
Ngā mihi nui,
Office of Hon Kiri Allan MP
Minister of Justice | Associate Minister of Finance | Associate Minister for the Environment | Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage
4.5L Executive Wing, Parliament Buildings | Wellington 6160 | New Zealand
Ext: 8857 | 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.
Authorised by Hon Kiritapu Allan, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
-----Original Message-----
From: Canterbury Victim [mailto:[FOI #21263 email]]
Sent: Sunday, 11 December 2022 10:42 PM
To: K Allan (MIN) <[Kiri Allan request email]>
Subject: RE: Official Information request - Knowledge of potential criminal activity by government employees
Dear K Allan (MIN),
Please see my original document where I state: "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."
As such Hon Kiritapu Allan must either provide the requested information or deny the request based on one or more of the reasons allowed by the Official Information Act.
Please confirm that Hon Kiritapu Allan will provide a decision within the timeframe required by the Official Information Act.
Yours sincerely,
"Canterbury Victim"
-----Original Message-----
Official Information Act Request
I refer to your official information request dated 28 November.
The information to which your request relates is not held by us but is believed to be held by the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission, Hon Dr. David Clark. We understand that this request has already been sent to the Minister responsible. You will hear further from the office of Hon Dr David Clark concerning your request.
Ngā mihi nui,
Office of Hon Kiritapu Allan MP
Minister of Justice | Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage | Associate Minister for the Environment | Associate Minister of Finance
4.5L Executive Wing, Parliament Buildings | Wellington 6160 | New Zealand
Ext: 8857 | [1]www.beehive.govt.nz
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #21263 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 K Allan (MIN),
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.
The Minister’s response refuses to provide official information based on 18(g), but not 18(e). As I had requested both documents and information it is not a valid response to refuse the information based on 18(g) alone. Please provide a Section 23 response as to why the request for official information was not refused on the basis of both 18(e) and 18(g).
Yours sincerely,
“Canterbury Victim”
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
All times 'Whangārei' is mentioned in Cabinet papers from date beginning 26 October 2017
To Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet by Harry Peterson
OIA Request
To Kiri Allan by Craig Innes
OIA Request
To Kiri Allan by Craig Innes
Statistics of the Conciliation Services offered through the Family Court
To Kiri Allan by Zane Collins
: BRING-FORWARD-DUTY/KNOWLEDGE of this Continuation-of-the [E]vidence: ~LW917683833NZ, ~LW917874722NZ: ~LW918060450NZ:
To Kiri Allan by : Jon: Bell.
Support
To Kiri Allan by Bryan
