Dear Minister of Justice,

Please provide copies of any and all relevant correspondence by or on behalf of the Minister, their office and officials, concerning negotiations and discussions with parliamentary parties, regarding the implementation of the recommendations provided to the Minister of Justice in the 29th October 2012 Report of the Electoral Commission on the review of the MMP voting system.

Inclusive of any responses received, or representations made to, or by, or on behalf of, any representative of a parliamentary political party or their staff regarding the implementation of any or all of the report’s recommendations.

Dear Robyn Tiller,

Thank you for your response of 29th April 2015 re my FOI request.

Given the time period and process referred to in the initial FOI request and the public knowledge of which incumbent was in receipt of the commission’s report I find the reason stated for declining it to be disingenuous and thus in poor faith.

If clarification was necessary I would have been only too happy to assist with such prior to its decline.

Subsequently, under Sec 19 (A) (ii) of the Official Information Act 1982, I would like to request the grounds in support for declining the request.

Also, please provide all correspondence between yourself, the Minister, their office and or officials related to the decision to decline, as well as any pertaining to fulfilment, or not, of their statutory obligations under sec 18B of the Official Information Act 1982.

If you would like clarification of anything here within please feel free to email me for such.

I would also appreciate any documents being forwarded to my given email address.

Yours sincerely,

J Sullivan

Dear Oliver Searle,

Thank you for your response to my related OIA request.

I considered the refusal of my initial request disingenuous as if subjected to the 'reasonable person' test, it would've be interpreted as not referencing solely the tenure of the Hon Amy Adams as Minister of Justice.

Never the less, in order to remove any doubt and avoid further confusion, I resubmitted the request clarifying the periods concerned.

That has since been declined by the Minister because...

"I am refusing your request under section 18(g), as neither I nor anyone on my behalf holds the information you requested..."

However, I herewith request clarification of the point in your Sept 21 reply, where you advise that the Minister declined the initial request on the basis that...

"...the Minister stated in her letter dated 29 April 2015, she does not hold any correspondence within the scope of your request.” which is cause to decline any OIA request under section 18(g) of the OIA Act 1982 (the Act) as applied by the Minister to the subsequent request.

However, it appears you have conflated the decline of the second request with that of the first.

For, the reason for the Ministers initial refusal was given in her letter of 29th April 2015 as there being 'no such' correspondence...

"There has been no such correspondence regarding the recommendations of the review of MMP or the implementation."

This is cause to decline such under section 18(E) of the act and not 18(G), as you suggest, and presumably due to the immediately preceding declarative sentence that the Minister had...

"...interpreted this as relating to the period for which I have been Minister of Justice."

Pursuant to which, I am still awaiting the response in relation to my request therein to:

"Also, please provide all correspondence between yourself, the Minister, their office and or officials related to the decision to decline, as well as any pertaining to fulfilment, or not, of their statutory obligations under sec 18B of the Official Information Act 1982.

That ...."the department, Minister of the Crown, or organisation must, before that request is refused, consider whether consulting with the person who made the request would assist that person to make the request in a form that would remove the reason for the refusal."

Therefore please provide documents or any communications related to the consideration of refusal on the basis of "no such correspondence”, which "must" be performed in accordance with section 18B of the Act.

Failing which, please provide reasons for failure to comply with the provisions of the Act.

Please supply all documentation in response by email.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,

J Sullivan

Dear Robyn Tiller,

Thank you for your response of 8th December, that advises:

"Your request for is refused under s 18(e) of the Act as no documents relating to the s 18(b) consideration exist. Consideration was given to the matters in s 18B, but there is no written record of such."

Leaving aside for the moment that an s 18B consideration of consultation prior to an s 18(e) refusal appears yet again to have been systematically omitted, I think clarification of my previous request is again necessary as I feel the response has failed to address it adequately.

There are two parts to that request, to which only the first has been responded to in full. That part pertaining to provision of relevant documentation.

To which you’ve responded that the Ministry has "no written record of such”. Presumably by this is meant in any form of physical or electronic media. If not, please clarify.

In the absence of explanation, I can only presume the Ministry either doesn't record or communicate such decisions in textual form, or, if it does, has no retention procedures for such in place.

Why that may be, I’m left to speculate.

However, that aside, there remains outstanding the second part of my request that’s not wholly dependent upon committal of decision processes to any form of media, being:

"Failing which” (in this case the provision of records) “please provide reasons for failure to comply with the provisions of the Act."

However, I do note you state in response that:

“Consideration was given to the matters in s 18B, but there is no written record of such.”

This despite some written records related to processing of the request and the Ministerial response being earlier provided, in the form of emails.

However, in the absence of any written record on which to predicate a determination that consideration was given, I can only conclude the statement there was indicates such is based on cognitive retention and knowledge of the decision, its occasion, as well as reason(s) for not consulting in accordance with s 18B, as applied at that time.

Therefore I hereby respectfully request such be advised by way of reply please, both for that s 18B decision as well as the s 18B decision related to the 8th December S 18(e) refusal, as well as any written records related to considerations of the latter.

Thanking you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

Yours Sincerely

John Sullivan

Dear Robyn Tiller,

My apologies for not making the distinction between yourself, that I auto replied to, and the author of the letter of the 8th Dec letter you forwarded, Justice Private Secretary, Stuart McGilvray.

All references regarding the letter of 8th Dec should be considered as addressed to the letters author, Justice Private Secretary Stuart McGilvray.

No disrespect was intended to either.

Yours sincerely,

J Sullivan

Dear Robyn Tiller,

Please advise current status of my OIA request as acknowledged in your reply of December 17, 2015

Yours Sincerely,

J Sullivan