A journalist for Insurance Business Online yesterday wrote an article entitled New code slammed by earthquake blogger (here). It is a concise and well organised look at how the Revised Code is being analysed on this blog.
Shortly after the article was published Tim Grafton, Chief Executive of the Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ), made the following comment:
Surprised and disappointed that this ill-informed blogger, who did not submit on the new Code, was given such prominence and our views were not sought. The Code’s timeframes for responding to customers follow best practise …
The rest of the comment is the standard PR stuff used in damage control situations. So, does this blogger resemble the description of being “ill-informed” and “did not submit”?
The CanCERN newsletter for 20 February this year has an article on the Avonside Blog starting up again. Part of the text reads "Lawrence was the main man behind CanCERN’s submission to the Insurance Council on the revised code"
In addition to having written the submission, I accompanied Leanne Curtis to meet with Tim Grafton for more than an hour when he came to Christchurch to hear submissions. Tim and I subsequently exchanged an e-mail (or maybe two) of clarification after the meeting.
It would seem to me that there is no truth in the joint accusations of being ill-informed and a non-participant. Rather, if I must blow my own trumpet, I am as eligible as anyone to make comments on the Revised Code. And so I shall.