Dear Department of Internal Affairs,

I refer you to a response made by Adrian Portis dated 26 April on behalf of Hon Peter Dunne to my OIA request made on this website. I still have not received an acknowledgement or response to my latest request.

Dear Adrian Portis

Thank you for your partial response to my request for information under the Official Information Act. However, the response does not adequately address the questions I raised and does not appropriately fulfill my request for information. Indeed, there are apparent contradictions between your latest response dated 26 April 2017 and an earlier response under the Act provided by a Ministry of Health official (dated 31 Jan 2017). This is very concerning. Please directly answer my questions below put forward in my request dated 21 March 2017.

1. Does the Minister consider the large amount of public money (almost three-quarters of a million dollars) spent on the two KPMG outcomes reports an example of good value for money?
2. Were there any practical benefits to problem gamblers and their families from the two KPMG Outcomes reports? If yes please provide all correspondence and documentation, including dates of when these benefits or improvements occurred and a description of these improvements and benefits.

There is a strong public interest in these matters and a full disclosure is required. A total of $135,000 of public funding has been paid out to KPMG for a report that the Assoc. Minister and the Ministry of Health have stated will not be published.

3. Therefore please explain why the 2012/13 KPMG Outcomes report will not be published?

Your latest response dated 26 April 2017 states that the 2012/13 KPMG Outcomes report will not be published by the Ministry. Your response also states that KPMG was paid the full amount for the 2012/13 Outcomes report.

4. Therefore please explain why the 2012/13 KPMG Outcomes report has not been published?

Information provided under the Act by a Ministry of Health official (dated 31 Jan 2017) Richard Taylor states that the 2012/13 KPMG Outcomes report was only completed in draft form. However in your latest response dated 26 April 2017 you state that the final contracted deliverable was completed by KPMG. These statements do not appear to be reconcilable.

5. Were KPMG only contracted to complete a draft 2012/13 Outcomes report?

Mr Taylor also states that there was a considerable delay in publishing the 2012/13 KPMG Outcomes report because of a judicial review process. However, your latest response dated 26 April 2017 states that KPMG were not involved in this judicial review. Once again, these statements do not appear to be reconcilable.

6. Therefore please explain why there was a considerable delay in the completion of the 2012/13 KPMG Outcomes report?

7. You state in your latest response that elements of the unpublished 2011/12 KPMG Outcomes report informed future progress. Please specify what these elements were and how they informed future progress?

Yours sincerely,

AMasters

Yours faithfully,

AMasters